Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 May	13 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfstream Pictures[edit]

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

Article created by a known serial hoaxer and serial sockpuppeteer. The article is puffy and misleading and is simply a recitation of films where the studio is one of several production studios. Gulfstream Pictures only has 5 screened films to their name, and for all of those films it was one of several production companies. Aside from standard press-release fare, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT, and the wiki article violates WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTPROMO. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete do not see anything wrong with listing the relevant films in the article so it does not violate catalog as they all have articles anyway but they only seem to have the sole credit for one film so this article is deceptive and promotional. Could not find anything at their website except that they are based at Warner Studios so perhaps if they are linked to warner they could be mentioned in a warner article either the company or studio article,thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mike Karz. It has a some more sources listed in the article about him. The company name is also mentioned in the article about him. Evil Idiot (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 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 Snow keep and besides, the AFD nominator was blocked for one month for harrasment. (non-admin closure) L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Castillo (Colombian footballer)[edit]

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

I can't find anythig on websites or news.If someone finds out, then I am wrong. O1lI0 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to Soccerway, Castillo played thirteen times in the FPL-listed Categoría Primera A during 2009. BDFA also lists various appearances for top-flight Colombian teams. R96Skinner (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Colombian top flight league is on our pro list and R96Skinner pointed you to Soccerway, so clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL The nominator pointed to a google search, but did he really do his homework?! The article could do with a bit of work on it know. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep former professional footballer who played in the fully-pro Colombian league, and appears to easily meet the GNG through online Spanish-language sources. The article needs work, but that is not grounds for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 19:23, 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 and redirect to The Bravado Brothers. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 05:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Barrow[edit]

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

Article about a person whose notability as a professional wrestler is already covered off, in significantly more detail than even attempted here, by the existing article The Bravado Brothers — so it's an entirely unnecessary article on athletic notability grounds, because that basis for notability is simply duplicating another article that already exists. Which leaves us with the real reason why somebody though it warranted a spinoff: his as yet non-winning candidacy in a future state legislature election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article: a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable as a politician, and the sourcing is depending entirely on primary sources rather than any evidence of a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage in media. So no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins the seat, but neither the substance nor the sourcing here offer any reason why he would qualify for a standalone biographical article about him separately from the duo article that already covers him in his correct notability context. Note as well that this is actually the second creation attempt by the very same WP:SPA, after their first attempt was speedied in March — so this isn't respeediable just because it was deleted before, because G4 requires that the previous deletion was via discussion and not speedy, but the creator clearly didn't understand the correct takeaway from the first attempt. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete and Salt~~ - --VitalPower talk 21:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt - WP:SALT Per CSD Created by a blocked user.--VitalPower talk 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CSD#G5 isn't applicable here as the originator of this article isn't blocked nor editing in contravention of a block or ban. Nthep (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creator isn't a blocked user. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. SportingFlyer talk 06:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable - Galatz ^Talk 12:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to The Bravado Brothers where subject is covered per WP:PRESERVE. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect- to The Bravado Brothers the guy's real is a plausible search term. Once redirected, the page should be protected to prevent recreation.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 01:20, 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. Its sources that matter not assertion. Delete side debunked sourcee. Keep side claimed they existed but failed to substantiate this when challenged before going off in to opinion and assertion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Wesley Cockburn[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a person with no strong claim to passage of any Wikipedia inclusion criterion. His main notability claim is serving on the city council of a city that is not large enough to hand its city councillors an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the sourcing here (one single biographical blurb on the website of the local historical society) is not enough to make him a special case over and above most other non-notable city councillors. And his work as an engineer doesn't suggest any reason why he could be considered notable for that, either -- none of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination reason--VP (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by original contributor He's as least as notable as any of the army of baseball players and barber shop quartet members that fill our virtual pages. There's no deadline, and I haven't even had time to head down to the library and check out a real paper book or two that would give some additional biographical information. I think a city councillor who displays the civic-mindedness to secure valuable rights for hydroelectric development and then *turn them over* to the city when they amend the charer to allow it, is a notable occurrence. More politicians should be so civic-minded. Founding an electrical utility was notable, even as late as 1906, and Cockburn's actions were critical in securing public power development in Manitoba. We've got dozens of obscure parliamentarians who are so un-notable we're not even sure when they were born or died. Cockburn at least has printed sources in English to back up his existence and contributions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Here are three books sources, which would seem to be enough to establish notability. Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The test for GNG is not "sources exist in which his name appears on one page" — it is "sources exist which are substantively about him". None of those books meet the necessary standard; they all just namecheck his existence a single time on a single page and then cease to be about him otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Wtshymanski. clearly meets our notability criteria. The article should be expanded, not deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike the keep votes above, I have no idea how the notability criteria are satisfied. The book search that "should be enough to establish notability" brings up three books in which he is mentioned only in footnotes or in passing. A "before" search only brings up the fact he founded the electric company, typically as "Led by alderman John Wesley Cockburn,". Yes, "printed sources in English" exist to show he existed as the alderman of Winnipeg and founded an electric company, but this is not the test for WP:GNG. If the original contributor believes a further contribution is possible to get this past WP:GNG I'd be happy for a draftify as historic sources may show WP:GNG, but as it stands, there's not enough source material to make a full-fledged article. SportingFlyer talk 06:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received substantial coverage in reliable ibdependent sources. The Winnipeg Historical Society maintains an entry on him. And in addition to the books noted above he's also documented in:
Who’s Who in Western Canada: A Biographical Dictionary of Notable Living Men and Women of Western Canada, Volume 1, edited by C. W. Parker, Vancouver: Canadian Press Association, 1911.
“Former Controller J. W. Cockburn Dead” Newspaper clipping. [Manitoba Legislative Library, Biographical Scrapbook B8, page 27]
Manitoba Legislative Library, Biographical Scrapbook B8, page 27, Obituary - J. W. Cockburn

He's not a huge figure in history but he made an impact on Winnipeg through his power plant involvement, as an alderman for many years, and as an influential merchant. A street is named for him. Just last year he was noted in a newspaper article. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post the paragraphs where he was mentioned in those books and a link to where the Winnipeg Historical Society mentions him? I want to verify your "substantial coverage" claim. -- Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who ever served on the city council of any city at all could always show an obituary from the local newspaper on the occasion of their death and a file in the archives of the local historical society, so those are not evidence of encyclopedic notability per se. Press coverage would have to start showing up outside of Winnipeg, like in The Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star, before serving on Winnipeg's city council started to constitute a notability claim in and of itself. GNG is not just "the number of available sources surpasses one" — it takes into account factors like the coverage's volume, depth and geographic range, and how strong the basic notability claim is in the first place. That is, for a member of the Canadian House of Commons, one source that confirmed that he held the claimed role would be enough to make the article keepable even if it still needs far more than that before it can be considered good — but for a city councillor, in a city where city councillors are not automatically presumed notable just for existing, it takes a lot more sourcing than has been shown here before GNG is actually passed. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg was the third largest city in Canada when Cockburn fathered its public utility and acted to establish to oldest continuously operating power plant in the province of Manitoba, Canada. His many years as an Alderman and hia role as an important merchant in the city further establish his notability. Winnipeg is the capital city of Manitoba so its daily paper isn't any more local than the New York Times. I suspect the paper in Manitoba doesn't cover the mayor of New York City that often but it doesn't make DeBlasio any less notable. Here's one of the sources requested. The historical society source is already cited. There's plenty of coverage of this guy wven today in regard to the power plant he helped establish as it continues in operation, [ https://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/print/volume-35/issue-7/articles/75-mw-pointe-du-bois-powering-canada-since-1911.html see here] noted in 2016. Certainly seems.like lasting notability to me. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for city councillors is not based on where the city ranks among cities in its own country — it's based on where the city ranks worldwide. Only alpha or beta class global cities, such as New York City or Chicago or Toronto or London, get an automatic entitlement to have all their city councillors presumed notable under NPOL #2 just for existing — in any other city outside that class, city councillors are accepted as notable only if the depth and range and volume of sourceability marks them out as a special case over and above most other city councillors. But you are not showing the depth and range and volume of sourceability that it takes — an obituary in the local newspaper and a file in the local historical society archives are sources which can quite routinely be simply expected to exist for every city councillor everywhere, regardless of whether they clear our notability standards for city councillors or not. And since every city has public utilities of some description, every city will have had somebody (or several somebodies) who can claim to have been the founder(s) of those things — so founding a public utility in his city is still not an inclusion freebie for a city councillor that would exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Also, HydroWorld is not a reliable or notability-supporting source, and that article isn't about Cockburn, it just namechecks his existence briefly in the process of being about something else. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The sources you've mentioned don't do that: one is a directory of many people, the other mentions him for a sentence or two. The sources are not there. They could be, but they wouldn't be online, which is why I would support a draftify if they might exist. SportingFlyer talk 21:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom, doesn't pass WP:NPOL and there just is enough sourcing to go on for any other way of making him notable. Just because his name is mentioned one time in a book, does not mean anything.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The article informs us that he operated a general store and grocery in Winnipeg and served as a city alderman for a single year. And that's it. I'm probably missing something in this debate, but what exactly is notable about him? And if there is something, why isn't it mentioned in the article?Pupsbunch (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He served as the city's alderman for 7 years, founded the province's firdt public utility, and the power plant he bought the land for is still in operation, the oldest in the province. All noted in the article and the cited sources covering him and his accomplishments. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr Tyutyunik[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete doesn't quite seemed to have attained lasting notability although he was once apromising young star. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per sources such as [1] and [2] and [3] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources demonstrate ""Significant coverage". All are passing, trivial mentions of the subject at hand. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested reading: WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTROUTINE.Jacona (talk) 20:15, 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 merge to Robert de Brus, 2nd Lord of Annandale. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert III de Brus[edit]

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

Contested prod, but majority view seems to be that he is not notable. PatGallacher (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert de Brus, 2nd Lord of Annandale per WP:PRESERVE. SpinningSpark 19:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything worth preserving? He only might seem significant because he shares a name with his illustrious great-great-great-nephew. PatGallacher (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is very short, so there really is no good reason not to include it in its entirety in a merge and redirect. It is at least worth pointing out that he was in line for the title, but died early. The test of notability is not applied to persons mentioned in an article, only when they are the subject of their own page. SpinningSpark 08:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per SpinningSpark's logic. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed above. He is not notable on his own, but the content here is relevant to the Robert de Brus, 2nd Lord of Annandale article. Dunarc (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge fails GNG but relevant to Robert de Brus Wolfson5 (talk) 03:43, 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 redirected by article creator. ansh 666 06:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-391 (music producer)[edit]

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

No notability. Does not pass WP:GNG and fails WP:NMUSIC due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. KingAndGod 19:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Ok. I agree. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 19:33, 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. Redirects at editor discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zesch's Militia Battery Kansas Light Artillery[edit]

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

This company-sized unit of Artillery existed, and it took part in some battles. That's pretty much the sum of everything I've been able to find out about it. There's no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" as required by the General Notability Guideline. Furthermore, this fails to meet the subject-specific WP:MILUNIT threshold as it was a company-level formation. I'm aware that there are articles about contemporary, similar-sized units but they meet the GNG. If they don't then nominate them too. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the article itself, which states (I kid you not) "Almost nothing is known about this unit." Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I find plenty of coverage of the unit by searching the commander's name, Gustavus Zesch. Also known as Zesch's battery and some reports say sometimes spelled Zisch. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's only passing mentions out there - none of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that Wikipedia's GNG demands. If I'm wrong, I welcome the addition of sources that meet Wikipedia's standards. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the sake of transparency, I am the article's creator, so my bias is obvious. When the article was created, Wikipedia standards were very restrictive to sources that could be found online. Added to this is the complication of creating an article that includes original research. This article is a prime example of a topic that should be available to folks looking for information and one that should be left intact for others who have information to add (i.e., encouragement to edit or become a new editor). I have done some work also, FloridaArmy, but past extensive edits on other articles I created led to lengthy debates about original research, which I think a lot of folks confuse with opinion rather than scholarship based on actual archival research. Lastly, and I may be greatly mistaken about this, but I think I remember reading that the battery had a mix of white and African American men, which would be a significant contribution to ACW military history if that's true. Spacini (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I look forward to reading this if you manage to find sources that meet Wikipedia's current requirements. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gustavus Zesch. Deb (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, but that, too, is at AfD...ten times greeting to you this Monday Deb. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know, but I will re-phrase - Redirect to Gustavus Zesch if the latter article is retained. Otherwise delete. Deb (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I find plenty of coverage of Zesch's units in the Civil War and I support redirecting to the article about him. An article on a particular company he commanded seems a bit specific. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question how is the research coming on the article and filling it out? It doesn't make sense to delete it if the sources are being dug up and we bring it right back... I'm inclined to go with incubate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Err. So far 72 bytes has been added to it since it was nominated here... —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, the "let's wait for sources" argument doesn't really work at AfD. If the sources can't be found, even by the original author, during the duration of the AfD then they aren't out there. If people want to incubate this (which isn't a valid choice at AfD) then they can copy it to their own user space. No need for red herrings here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Which is why I suggested incubate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1st Kansas Volunteer Infantry which this seems to be a part of? Or to a higher level Kansas formation, e.g. Kansas State Guard? This short lived 2-gun battery does not pass WP:MILUNIT and does not have SIGCOV. However, it is listed in some orders of battles - e.g. [4].Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't part of the 1st Kansas – you may be confusing this with Company I, 1st Kansas, which Zesch commanded. Kges1901 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Almost nothing is known about this unit" equals no notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 9th Kansas Militia Infantry Regiment. This is a 2-gun battery (smaller than average) and a militia unit so would have seen less action (as a militia unit these were part time soldiers and so were not assigned to a higher unit). In fact we can only find proof that it fought at Westport; as we have about 3 sentences about the battery itself it makes sense to merge said content into the ~~Kansas unit list~~ 9th Kansas Milita Infantry (if Zesch is not kept). The muster rolls of Zesch's unit are online (pages 29-33), and it included about 90 men though a large number of them went AWOL before Westport. According to a notation on the muster roll, Zesch raised a company of mounted scouts as part of the 9th Kansas Militia Infantry, which mustered in on 10 October 1864, as Price raided Missouri (see Price's Raid for background). They were attached to the post of Fort Leavenworth (which explains Dyer's comments) and were ordered to the front on 20 October, when they were given charge of a light battery (the two guns previously mentioned). After Westport and Price's defeat, the company mustered out on 27 October. Kges1901 (talk) 22:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rome2rio[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable travel website. Significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Micamer and extensively edited by Special:Contributions/Kirsteenephelan - two accounts with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two more sources, including a Los Angeles Times source. Personally, I feel this is a pretty remarkable travel website, and have used it many times. The website has pretty high traffic, and is ranked 6,259th on the Alexa Rank. Wikipedia has pages for websites ranked much lower than this. Emass100 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has 181 hits on Factiva, including articles from BRW, AFR, The Australian, and SMH, as well as from overseas news organisations including the New York Times, The Times (UK), and TIME magazine, dating back to 2011. Many articles merely mention it as a listing among other travel apps, but others include it as the primary focus of the article. I'd say it meets WP:CORPDEPTH, but if not, as a web-based platform and app it still meets WP:NWEB. Any NPOV issues, if there are any, can be fixed through editing. Kb.au (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs a rewrite but the TechCrunch and LA Times articles are significant Wolfson5 (talk) 03:45, 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. czar 01:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man Who Worked in the Garden[edit]

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

Sadly, I can find no evidence that the gardener in Bill and Ben has been discussed in reliable sources, making this an essay. I find only the occasional adjective such as "sinister" and one suggestion that the Flower Pot Men stole their clothes from his potting shed. The only reference supports the class distinction in time of main meal (see U and non-U English), but does not deal with the character himself. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with regret! I enjoyed this little essay ("the reference to “dinner” helped to establish the man’s working class credentials"), but as the nomination says it does appear to be a bit of original research. Also, I'm afraid this unseen non-speaking character really doesn't justify a separate article. However, the description of the Flower Pot Men is more entertaining than the main series article: "The invariable setting for The Flower Pot Men was the “beautiful garden” surrounding a large English house (though it was introduced as a “little house”). Whenever the “man who worked in the garden”, as he was always called, went “inside the house to have his dinner”, two puppets with strange elocution, made from flowerpots, came out to play. They were Bill and Ben, who lived in very large adjacent flowerpots bearing their respective names, between which grew a large plant, similar to a sunflower (helianthus annuus), called the “Little Weed”. Bob talk 19:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with regret, not notable. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niaz Morshed Elite[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) 17:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of lack of notability. This is a purely promotional text, now somewhat cleaned up. Which does not improve its standing.-The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRV. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources and I don't see any claim of notability, neither in the article nor in search. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:08, 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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiraj Kumar[edit]

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

Director of only one notable film (not even released yet) is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. To meet WP:AUTHOR, must direct multiple notable films. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails to meet basic GNG as well.. Saqib (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page was deleted A10 by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), but the description at Dheeraj Kumar doesn't match Saqib's description here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was also tagged as an A7, which it qualified for as well. I must have forgotten to list the multiple reasons. It was a little unclear if there are multiple film directors named Dhiraj (or Dheeraj) Kumar, but at least one of the sources in the deleted article seemed to be referring to Dheeraj Kumar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 06:42, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G12. ansh 666 17:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Sumdany Don[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) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been copy/pasted from http://deshreport.com/en/ghulam-sumdany-dons-six-books-self-development/ BubbleEngineer (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional text about a non-Wikinotable subject. Seems to be the latest fashion, putting up unworthy, (self-) aggrandizing texts online. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since May 2016, the topic has been speedily deleted five times (G13, G11, and G5). Thrice under the title Draft:G. Sumdany Don and twice as G. Sumdany Don. None of the cited newspaper coverage is newer than those deletions. An administrator may wish to compare the deleted versions with this one. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:31, 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 02:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formazioni di difesa proletaria[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 14:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - definitely notable, with plenty of WP:RS available at the Italian and French versions of the article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, please check out the foreign language versions of this article, makes it easy to find relevant sources. Just because coverage might not be available in English, it doesn't mean that it is inexistent. And yes, this article really needs some improvement. wikitigresito (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Certainly notable. The length of the Italian WP article shows there is much more to be said. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course they're notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social_Repose[edit]

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

There are no references in existence anywhere in sources of reputable calibre to demonstrate the subject has sufficient notability to be included in an encyclopedia. This is because he doesn't. SatansFeminist (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very weak sourcing. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the coverage in secondary news sources is out there; what's on the article is okay and indicates notability but sure, it could be better. Ss112 13:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage as seen "Social+Repose"+-wikipedia&oq="Social+Repose"+-wikipedia&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3638.4027.0.4355.2.2.0.0.0.0.124.213.1j1.2.0....0...1c.1j4.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.-uD0lZqF4rI here. Not sure why the weird underline is included in the title of the nom? Is it in the article too? Needs to be removed before looking for sources covering this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 20 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

355 (film)[edit]

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

The film has only just been announced and pitched, as well as it is not even filming yet or even having a script, so it fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. I created it in a draftspace prior to this ones creation for the sole purpose of fleshing it out there before filming. This mainspace article is premature and needs to be deleted. Rusted AutoParts 14:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am with Rusted Autoparts all the way with this. Way too premature here. Like that user said, there is a quality draft in the draftspace - where a film in development should be at this point in time. I vote quick deletion. TheMovieGuy
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, also a duplicate of the topic in draft Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 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 redirect to Green Lantern in other media#Films. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern Corps (film)[edit]

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

Per IP's slightly opaque request at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Green_Lantern_Corps_(film) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. Not really sure what happened here, but it's unquestionably a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 14:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that the IP who requested this AfD is the same one who cretaed the article out of the redirect. Which suggests that they don'yt actually have a serious deletion nomination and merely want to discuss notability—which of course is what the talk page is for. I think this might be a WP:SKCRIT#1, going by the first example given under that criterion. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a serious treatment of an article about a real production. 96.249.215.234 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it is not a "real production" yet, it's in preproduction. Per our WP:NFF guidelines, films that have not yet started principal photography should not have their own article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:03, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Goes Hardcore[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find nothing beyond social media listings about the existence of various songs from the album, and even those have attracted very little commentary from users and zero from significant media sources. This article also appears to be an attempt at promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NALBUM. -The Gnome (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Guess[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article was deleted in 2007. Still not seeing enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and subsequently fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree there is significant coverage. But can't figure out why this person is notable? Freetheangels (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Disagree, its enough sourcing of verified information. Person is notable music producer, and spouse of famed persons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evensteven200 (talk • contribs) strike confirmed sock vote--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When sockpuppets are needed to justify keeping, the article might best be deleted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete carefully crafted WP:artspam. The cites and ref's are superficially misleading. One must delve deeper. None provide sufficient, in depth coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG, ANYBIO, Notability (people). A hodgepodge. And being married to a model is not sufficient for notability.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:09, 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. ENT arguments appear to be more wishful than based on the meaning of the policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill_Callaghan_(Beefeater)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bill Callaghan (Beefeater)

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

The page is themed and based from the idea of the person's 'internet fame'. Is this really an accomplishment that deserves a page on Wikipedia? KiloSierraCharlie^talk 09:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. The subject also fails to meet the specific guidelines for military personnel at WP:SOLDIER. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E. And 1mio hits on YouTube is nothing by today's standards. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no event here and so talk of WP:ONEEVENT is nonsense. The subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER and, having taken a look at his act, I can see why. Andrew D. (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Andrew D.. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. (EDIT: Added sources, confirmed my point) Emass100 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not an entertainer, he's a Yeoman Warder who gave a tour, footage of which went viral. This is an encyclopaedia, not a list of people who went viral for something. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He made a tour and enterntained people, that makes him an entertainer. He went viral because he was good, giving him notability and significant coverage, and becoming an example to others in his field. Emass100 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, at WP:N, there's the phrase "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Exemplo347 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there was no event, so bringing up WP:ONEEVENT is nonsense. Also, saying that this living entertainer's article should be deleted because he might not appear in the news again goes against WP:CRYSTAL. Emass100 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "event" is the tour which was posted on Youtube - the only reason the article exists. Can you find any coverage at all about this person that meets Wikipedia's standards, that isn't about that video? There's none. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I actually bothered to search for them, and found more recent sources stating that he is now a highly sought-after After Dinner Speaker. Emass100 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through WP:RS to see what constitutes a reliable, independent source for Wikipedia's purposes. A profile on his agent's website is not suitable for inclusion - the Biographies of Living Persons policy is quite strict on sourcing & I'll be posting a request at Wikiproject Biography asking an uninvolved editor to check this article's sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The actual guideline, Emass100 and Andrew Davidson, reads:

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities.

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

The WP:ENTERTAINER guideline does not include After Dinner Speakers, and to use it here is is taking the the guideline a tad too far out of context. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER is a guideline and so common sense is expected. After-dinner speaker and tour guide are multiple roles and both involve an element of comedy. The millions of hits demonstrate the cult following and the press coverage demonstrates some mainstream notability too. Of course, he's not a superstar and so is at the low end of the scale. But he's got a lot more going for him than the thousands of athletes that get a stubby bio for a perfunctory appearance on the field. Chitty (cricketer) sets the bar very low. Andrew D. (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel he does fit into this category of WP:ENTERTAINER. Even though he is an after-dinner speaker, he's basically a comedian becuase of the comedic styles of his presentation. A lot of people are still following his twitter account, and asking how they can get a tour of the Tower of London with him, showing he still has a cult-like following. Emass100 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat known "character" referred to on travel programmes and websites. Reasonable that people might wish to look him up and article is factual and adequately sourced. No reason to delete at all unless someone wishes to dig down into the boring weeds of barrack room wiki "debatery". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. The Biographies of Living Persons policy & the General Notability Guidelines aren't "down in the boring weeds" at all. Do you have a policy-based reason for keeping the article? "Common sense" isn't a valid reason, by the way. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is Schreeching "WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA" a valid reason to delete.Emass100 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no screeching. Valid, policy-based reasons for deletion have been given. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my reason for keeping the article. Demanding a "policy-based reason" is just a silly example of wiki-weed dwelling at its worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.247.29 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I was trying to help you. As you're clearly a logged-out experienced editor I'll leave you to it. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the fact that it may be thought that WP:ENTERTAINER has been fulfilled, does racking up a number of views on the Internet (for doing your job), count as a large following or cult?? 2A02:C7F:DA72:2000:F59A:1B3B:E6D6:F2F7 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His Twitter account still has a large following, and people are still interested in seeing him. The first video that was shown of him was the trigger that made him famous, but his notability goes way beyond that. Emass100 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10.7k followers, unverified. Is that really what we class as a large following, when you consider that there are others in the same job as him, who have 1.5k followers? Sure, it's 9k off, but in the general scheme of things, it's fairly close numbers, given what a large following on the internet usually consists of. KiloSierraCharlie^talk 19:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it's still a pretty big number, especially for when he became famous 8 years ago. While 3,5 Million views on youtube might seem low loday, remember that there wasn't even 10 people with 1M+ subscribers on youtube at the time. Also, WP:GNG doesn't have a requirement for minimum twitter followers. Emass100 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't see evidence of notability, either here or at his article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kudpung. I'd note that all of the Beefeaters are encouraged (required?) to have entertaining routines, so Mr Callaghan is not unique among his colleagues. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E (he received coverage for one event...), the number of Youtube hits is WP:ARBITRARY. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide energy supply[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a monograph, written in the style of a review article. The author is an academic, which no doubt explains the fact that it reads as a novel synthesis from primary sources. The number of sources is actually quite small, and consists in large part of statistics, based on which the article makes its arguments. As a topic it is largely redundant to World energy consumption, which is a collaboratively written article. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not synthesize but summarizes statistics from the large IEA database. It differs from World energy consumption:

uses same unit, Mtoe, for all sorts of energy instead of Mt for coal, bcm for gas, etc.
clearly distinguishes primary energy, total primary energy supply and final energy consumption.

Rwbest (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rwbest (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Under Wikipedia policies, that is exactly the definition of novel synthesis. It is your interpretation drawn from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rwbest explains above the article "... summarizes statistics from the large IEA database." Making his own story based in information he selectively picked from a large database seems to me to be original research. - Robotje (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary. Original research has been done by IEA. Rwbest (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion this article is not OR: it is not an interpretation, nor a new thesis, nor making a new statement, not supported by sources. The article is a summary, the author digested the material for the readers. The reader doesn't have to search through the IEA-tables himself.

Citation from "SYNTH is not summary": "Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

Maybe the article lacks some quality because it is just a summary and some improvements are possible. Koos van den beukel (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were you drawn here from the discussions on the Dutch Wikipedia, by any chance? I notice this is your first edit this year. I disagree with your analysis (obviously). This article is drawn wholly form primary sources and makes arguments the primary sources themselves do not make. It is a very common thing for academics like the author of this article to write pages that would be entirely normal in academic publishing but which violate Wikipedia's policies against original research. Wikipedia editors are supposed to defer to external expertise, not be experts themselves. The fact that this article is a monograph is a large part of the problem, but not by any means the whole problem. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears unnecessary when World energy consumption already exists and explains its key tenets. They would appear to be extremely similar to the point where one of them is not needed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, World_energy_consumption uses data from fossil fuel industry (BP, World coal Institute) which are primary. About 200 IEA experts gather data from governments and industry, check and organize them, so the IEA publications are in fact external expertise. Rwbest (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as you say, it's original research. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rwbest (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just YES-NO back and forth, why is it or is it not WP:OR??--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content stinks. The article "Worldwide energy supply" is certainly notable and is different from "World energy consumption" (one is supply, the other is demand). The content may have WP:OR violations. If so, that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. This article is on its third AFD now:No Consensus, then Keep. I see no new deletion arguments introduced. That the article is written by an academic is not a reason to delete. That the article reads like a novel is not a reason to delete. And I don't really like the colors in the graphs--but that isn't a reason to delete either. Sometimes an article is so poorly written that we are better off deleting the article, but that isn't hte case here. These are editing issues and not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that it reads like a novel, the issue is that it's a novel synthesis from primary sources. The (sole) author essentially admits it. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. More a WP:TNT issue. The sole author (it is a monograph despite its enormous length) is an academic. This is a classic Wikipedia problem: this would be fine as a paper in a journal, but it's his synthesis of the sources, and even if he didn't have massive WP:OWN tendencies there is nobody else who is writing this article so it's not going to get fixed. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Wikipedia is not a host for academic papers. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Original research with sources that do not back up the statements in the text (you have to start calculating yourself). The Banner talk 08:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tabulation of available data from good sources , and making obvious arithmetical and graphic modifications of it , its not OR, but rather the proper use of sources to summarize a subject. We cannot write abut technical subjects without doing this. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 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 keep. Withdrawn per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zehra Say[edit]

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

The claim of "first officially married Turkish woman" is so bizarre I assume it is a translation error. Notability issues; this seems to be an ordinary high school art teacher, and I can't find anything about her art career that suggests WP:NARTIST is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see the documentation of the official certificate of marriage in the original old Turkish. The marriage is considered the: "Türkiye cumhuriyeti'nde ilk resmi nikah" which according to me means first official marriage in the Republic of Turkey. Perhaps @Nedim Ardoğa: can provide a better translation? GlobalSecretary (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GlobalSecretary. CeeGee 08:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- the republic was officially proclaimed on 29 October 1923, and this woman was married in 1926. Are you asking me to believe that no official weddings took place in Turkey for over two years, and cite that only to her marriage certificate? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I rather suggest you to believe it. "Officially" means here, according to the marriage law passed the parliament sometime later than the proclamation of the republic. The implementation of reforms took some time. CeeGee 18:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of this article passes WP:GNG. The fact that many of the sources are in Turkish does not mitigate this as this is a global project. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG clearly met - as a side note, if the sources cannot be understood by the nominator, the usual course of action is to ask for help from someone familiar with the language the sources are written in. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom - I'm not convinced GNG is met. The references are entirely in Turkish (which is permitted, but makes my life harder), and include things such as Facebook pages and trivial mentions [5], as well as more substantial coverage [6]. Simply being the first woman to enter a civil marriage in the Republic of Turkey isn't a claim of notability, it would be WP:BIO1E (and trivia). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do not understand the Turkish references, the substantial coverage spanning several decades is enough to show you notability.--GlobalSecretary (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient evidence of notability has been provided. The beginning of civil, secular marriage in an Islamic society is far more significant than the nominator seems to realize, which is why there is a monument to the first marriage. The nominator should refrain from comments about "life" being "harder" when foreign language sources are used, as that is not a valid reason for deletion. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I simply meant that it would be helpful if the "meets GNG" voters would describe *which* of the references are reliable secondary sources. Beyond that, enough has been done on this article that I'm more worried about the promotional nature of the articles on her relatives Emel Say and Fazıl Say than the notability here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the text needs one serious improvement, especially in terms of its English. I agree with Cullen328 above, about the contested article, but about Wikipedia in general a thorough debate might be needed, since, for starters, we cannot reasonably expect the content of each Wikipedia across languages to be identical. Of course, this is not the place for it. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to argue that content between various language Wikipedias should be identical or even close at this time. Instead, my argument is that this English language Wikipedia is written in the English language but ideally should cover all notable topics, even if the notability of these topics is established by references to reliable sources in other languages. As the largest Wikipedia, we also should be the most comprehensive, although the other top language Wikipedias come close. The reliability of a given source has nothing whatsoever to do with the language it is written in. This is a matter that I care about deeply, The Gnome, so we can discuss it further on my talk page if you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 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 keep. Notability still seems weak but, based on the new sources provided throughout the AfD, I will withdraw my nomination and close this. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 21:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Zwingenberger[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for academics. Sources consist of her CV and what looks like some user created academic collaboration site. GScholar shows several papers, none cited more than 7 times. News searches show nothing and a web search turns up social media etc. There may be material if French sources. Jbh ^Talk 20:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw notability still seems weak but, based on the new sources provided throughout the AfD, I will withdraw my nomination. Jbh ^Talk 21:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is on par with other women French academics, such as Catherine Perret, but I leave it to you all to decide. However I find an author of 30 books notable. Valueyou (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article you refer to is completely lacking in sources and would, as it stands, likely be deleted but for the claim of her being awarded Chevalier des Palmes académiques which seems to be prestigious enough to to pass WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF#2. Properly there should be a source which confirms that award before it could be used to document notability. Per WP:BLP biographies of living people require sources. With a few narrow exceptions subjects of articles require significant coverage in independent, third party reliable sources to demonstrate they meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Jbh ^Talk 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the subject passes the notability guideline for academics, but she may possibly be notable as a curator and/or author. A click on "news" is the search links automatically provided above finds plenty of coverage of exhibitions that she has curated. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell those are brief quotes and passing mentions. What is needed is significant coverage about her in multiple sources. I generally consider at least three articles each with several paragraphs discussing the person to be a minimum threshold. That can vary though. For instance a major feature article and some smaller mentions may also work. This is, of course, my personal opinion and others can, and do, disagree. Jbh ^Talk 17:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given an opinion about keeping or deleting in this case. As well as the sources I have cited in the article there are several other major publications with similar coverage of the "Alles Kannibalen“ exhibition at the me Collectors Room Berlin and some Azerbaijani news sources about Zwingenberger's championing of the artist Maryam Alakbarli. In each case the coverage is of Zwingenberger's work, rather than about her favourite colour or the name of her pet cat. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about her work, the impact she has on the profession etc is all fine. There just needs to be more than a blurb in a bigger article. All this AfD means is that, in my opinion, the sources in the article and those I can locate do not demonstrate she meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If there are some sources out there which you can either add to the article or list here I am more than happy to reassess my judgment. If new sources change my mind before someone else !votes Delete I can just withdraw my nomination and close this early myself. Jbh ^Talk 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found some other internet material in French if that helps: https://www.editions-eres.com/nos-auteurs/61622/zwingenberger-jeanette / http://aicafrance.org/portrait-de-jeanette-zwingenberger/ https://www.amazon.com/Jeanette-Zwingenberger/e/B009IML442 / http://www.archivesdelacritiquedart.org/auteur/zwingenberger-jeanette / http://www.daviot.net/textes/publications/zwingenberger.php Valueyou (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking but, from what I can tell, those are all web site/organization biography pages not media coverage. The kind of sources which are needed to show notability must be independent of the subject; have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy; and, most importantly be published. For instance in a book, newspaper or a journal review of her work. Please see WP:IS and WP:RS for more about sourcing and WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR for more about notability criteria.

Another possibility would be to locate several independent reviews of her books. Books need two significant independent reviews to be notable (see WP:NBOOK). Often there is enough biographical material in several reviews to show notability of the author.

I will continue to look for sources as well. I prefer keeping an article to deleting one but without adequate source material to work from we can not have a good, neutral article. WP:BLP requires sourcing for biographies of living people. WP:V requires that information be tracible to a reliable source. Wikipedia bases its notability criteria on those requirements. It is an imperfect system but it is what we have. Jbh ^Talk 11:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I found a couple of sources and added them, but I think there may be more sources in German and French. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I think the review her book [7] shows a possibility there would be other material out there. Although, I do not find the mentions of what she has curated useful from a wiki-notable point of view. As the article stands I am iffy on her notability, maybe the book could satisfy WP:PROF#1 but a single review is a bit thin. Since academics are notoriously hard to source, I am OK with this being closed No consensus to give a more time to find sources. You are welcome to close it as such or you can ping me and I will. Either way I guess it could be considered an IAR 'Speedy NC' rather than 'Speedy Keep'. I can't in good conscience withdraw since I am not convinced she will pass notability but I have a good faith belief she might. Jbh ^Talk 19:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at right now, too. She seems notable, but I couldn't find any other RS to add. Ipigott is a polyglot, so maybe he can find something we've missed. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she's been covered in the French press. I've added a snippet to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see she has written 41 works in 84 publications in 3 languages and 1,075 library holdings. [8]. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a female art academic, the subject is never likely to pass the WP:GNG. The applicable SNG is, as pointed out above, WP:PROF and the reliable sources linked indicate that she qualifies under multiple prongs of that guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: Which PROF criteria do you believe she passes and why? A bare assertion does not really help. Thanks. Jbh ^Talk 21:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the significant international media attention to her curation now demonstrated in the article (from Taipei Times to La Croix), and the published book review now included, give (barely) enough published in-depth coverage to pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent article improvements. Notability has been sufficiently demonstrated and is derived from the reception of her work as an arts curator. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:18, 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 06:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzbeh Gulumov[edit]

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

Author is the subject. Notability is very shaky. External links appear (I don't speak azerbaijan) to be purely proof of works completed, not actual, secondary sources. Previously nominated for BLP PROD and CSD. CSD never resolved due to accidental edit conflict due to authors removal of the CSD template. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Azerbaijani language is written in the Latin alphabet, a search on "Gulumov Ruzbeh Mammadoglu" shows nothing [9] and a search on "Ruzbeh Gulumov" shows that he has Twitter and Facebook accounts plus a blog or an admirer with a blog. It also shows: [10] that he has written for Meydan TV. Page 2 of the search include an article published by sonexbur.az, but subject wrote it, and an author's bio on kayzen.az. Noting better on pages 3 or 4 - and there the search hits end. This is not how searches for contemporary poets or writers of any notability look. Fails WP:CREATIVE. He's young, so it may well be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject distinctly lacks Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:01, 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. We sometimes overuse the LOCAL argument but the point about 1E has not been challenged Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Cook[edit]

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

Run off the mill basketball player. Not much on Google. EROS ^message 03:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not an especially noteworthy basketball player but there does seem to be some coverage in RS: [11] [12] [13] [14] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are just routine coverage not the indepth stuff needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually examine the sources I provided or are you just sure they are routine? Some of the sources are rather indepth. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 18:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources provided in keep vote cover only the subject applying for the NBA draft. And trying to enter the draft does not prove notability. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NBASKET or WP:GNG. Declaring for the NBA draft does not make you notable. SportingFlyer talk 23:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Also expanded the article a bit and added more sources. Dammit_steve (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage appears to be routine sports reporting typical of any major college basketball player--injury, announcement of where he's decided to play, etc. The only thing that isn't obviously routine are the articles about whether or not he's going to return for his senior year at Iowa--and that seems pretty routine (or falls under WP:BLP1E). Definitely does not meet the SNG for basketball players. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is a pretty extensive profile. Here is an article about an injury. Here is an article from the Associated Press about how he's Iowa's best player. This article isn't specifically about Cook but does devote several paragraphs to him. Another article from a local source. So it's not true that all the coverage is about him declaring for the draft. If the consensus here is to delete, I propose moving to draftspace or userfying. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a Cedar Falls paper's coverage of a summer basketball league game in Cedar Falls, concerning an athlete who had yet to attend college can be considered "extensive" or used to claim WP:GNG is met. I would say it falls under WP:NHSPHSATH instead, with some WP:ROUTINE thrown in. I'm also skeptical that claims he's the best player on a team that finished 1 game out of last place in the Big 10 are sufficient to show notability. Even if the claim is true there are 347 division 1 basketball programs, all of whom have at least 1 player who can claim to be the team's best. Papaursa (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets gng with the sources in the article, including this one [15] from usatoday.Jacona (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entering the NBA draft does not equal notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:NCOLLATH, he needs to be the subject of non-trivial media coverage, and non-routine coverage. None of the cited sources really establish that in my opinion. The sources are either local papers/news channels, or in the case of the national ones, don't give more than trivial coverage: most college athletes could and indeed do get similar levels of coverage - this doesn't make them notable.FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:51, 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. Sandstein 06:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Isaac Faure[edit]

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

No evidence found of subject meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The person existed, but "notability" seems to be the opinion of the creator. All references I've found are primary sources, unreliable sources, or trivial mentions. That the name "Daniel Faure" appears in genealogy databases and Virginia County Records is no more a claim to inclusion than a name in a phone book. Wikipedia is not a place for genealogical entries of non-notable subjects, even if their descendants may plausibly be notable. (notability is not inherited). Notability requires verifiable evidence. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails the core content policy of no original research. It is well written and interesting, but details about Daniel Faure are scant in the article (and elsewhere I look) and the article would perhaps be better in a genealogical magazine, but isn't encyclopedic, in my opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When county records are cited to show someone is notable, that is a sure sign they are not. County records are primary not secondary sources and thus can not show anyone is notable. Wikipedia is not the place to publish breaking historical research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This artile shows how Wikipedia can help researchers with following:

Examples of French Huguenots that migrated from England to the US
Secondary Sources include historians porviding their interpetation on these events
Daniel Faure and his children help found the Mankin Town village
Sources include documented family trees and discussions
Examples of Abjuration made in April 1685 by Daniel Faure

--Greg Henderson 8 May 2018. —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi greghenderson2006, its easier to sign using 4 tildes (it also automatically adds time/date), thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails basic test of requiring multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. Glendoremus (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this well written article about a non-Wikinotable subject. After the AfD nomination, time was allowed for additional sourcing but, so far, only primary ones seem to have been located. It's one of those cases where a suggestion to delete is made with regret, since many lousy texts (certainly much worse than this one) are allowed to stay up on account of their notable subject. But them's the rules. -The Gnome (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I agree with the last comment: it is a moderately good article about a person who is wholly NN. We cannot allow an article about every individual who arrived in America in a certain period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Input by Greghenderson2006[edit]

I think that this wiki article is important in that Daniel Isaac Faure was one of the early French Huguenot that migrated from England to the colony of Virginia in 1700 to escape pursecution by the French King. Daniel's descendents are here today because of his brave attept to leave his homeland to find a new place in America. Daniel Isaac Faure is notable for the following reason:

He has significant coverage in genealogy circles as an early French Huguenot
His unusual journy to America in the 1700s is important as it was sponsored by the Virgina governor to develop the lands along the James River
Daniel Isaac Faure is worthy of notice because he was one of the first Faure to arrive in America in 1700 to start a new life where he could practice his religion with out pursecution
Secondary sources include:
- Virgina County Records
- The French Huguenot Frontier Settlement of Manakin Town
- Manikan Town The French Huguenot Settlement in Virginia
- History of the Huguenot Imigration to America, Volume 1, by Charles W. Baird, D.D
Primary sources include:
- Find A Grave Website
- Geni Website
- Family Search Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006: please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If you're short on time, read The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Being "one of several hundred French Huguenots that crossed the Atlantic" does not explain why this person (or his descendants) warrant an article. You claim "He has significant coverage in genealogy circles as an early French Huguenot" Prove it with sources. Why is the first Faure noteworthy to anyone but other Faures? (If this is another one of your family member articles, please recognize your inherent bias). Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a genealogy database. Ultimately, neither your opinion of the subject, nor mine, are relevant to establishing to notability: we need significant coverage in reliable sources that have already connected the dots of history and firmly established notability. Of the "secondary sources" you've provided, all are trivial, passing mentions at best:

Virgina County Records devotes perhaps one sentence to Daniel Isaac Faure (the brother of Pierre Faure?), and then apparently discusses primary sources about his son, mainly dealing with property and estimating kinship. This is trivia from an encyclopedic point of view.

The French Huguenot Frontier Settlement of Manakin Town appears to not mention anyone by the name of Faure at all, thus it is original research or at best improper synthesis, to glean or infer 'notability' from such a source.

Manikan Town The French Huguenot Settlement in Virginia contains a single reference to "The widow Faure and four children." in a list of refugees.

The History of the Huguenot Imigration to America, Volume 1 devotes three sentence fragments to a "Daniel Fore, son of Issac Fore and Anne Tibault", and who exactly is this article about: Daniel Isaac Fauré (1624-1701)? Jean Pierre Faure (1675-1745)? The whole early Faure clan?

As I said earlier, the mere inclusion of names in historic documents does not establish notability. Trivial mention in secondary sources does not establish notability. Notability is not inherited by subjects being merely associated with notable events, periods, or people. We cannot have subjects in Wikipedia that have not been significantly covered by multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. If you want to write about the Faure family, you're welcome to do so anywhere else, maybe even get it edited and legitimately published by a magazine or journal, after which a possible claim to notability might exist. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: Thank you for your reply and comments regarding Daniel Isaac Faure. As I understand you must police bogus or not worthy articles, I feel that you should make an exception in this case as to promote a more "Agile' approach to incremental articles that can build upon the wiki community for support. In my research on the Faure > Ford ancestry, I often turn to Wikipedia to gather information. If one does a search today on Wikipedia, you find little information on the Faure family and the French Huguenots that came to America. If we define "encyclopedia" as giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject, then this article sheds light on how some of the French Huguenot made that journey to America and landed in one of the original thirteen colonies. I've added more primary and seconday source information and I'am in the process of finding much more. Please allow sufficient time for me to follow all the wiki guidelines before deletion. Thanks! --Greg Henderson 7 May 2018.

Comment, did this fellow even make it to the US? History and Families, McCracken County, Kentucky, 1824-1989 suggests here that he died before leaving England or at sea (probably one reason why the article has a dearth of info on him), im wondering why the article has his title given it is mainly about family and descendants, if this is notable, which doesnt look likely, shouldn't it be named "Faure family" or some such? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Greghenderson2006, i agree that this article can help researchers but the same can be said about numerous wikiarticles, what is needed are reliable independent secondary sources (as brought out by editors above) going through your dotpoints above: French Huguenots to North America are already covered at Exodus#Huguenots (it definitely needs more referencing though), sources are already discussed by above editors, Manikan town/village is covered at History#Powhatan County, Virginia (i note that there were 700 to 800 Huguenot "founders", what makes the Faures more significant than the others?), sources of family trees/discussions are primary, examples of Abjuration can be included there if they are notable/significant. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment, hi Coolabahapple, thank you for your comments. They sound a bit more encouraging. I noticed that Wikipedia has many articles subject to the deletion policy everyday, so this must be a routine screening process for new articles. I picked a subject that is not easy to write about because of the lack of solid information. Other wiki articles I have completed were somewhat easier to locate primary and secondary sources. In any case, I took this on as a challenge because I wanted to establish a wiki articles on a family coming to America that was under religious persecution. Daniel Isaac Faure was of interest in that all of the primary sources show that he was the first Faure and his descendants to come to America. The secondary sources appear to be discussion about this event and in particular his children. Since Wikipedia did not have many articles about Daniel Faure or other French Huguenot coming to America, I thought this would be a good article to write. I am in the process of finding more secondary sources. There seems to be plenty of primary sources, e.g. the list of names that have been authenticated as founders of the Huguenot colony at Manakin or Huguenots settling in early colonial Virginia. They include: FAURE, FORD, Pierre Jean, Elizabeth, Widow Faure, Anne, Daniel. --Greg Henderson 9 May 2018.

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

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

The result was redirect to List of That '70s Show characters. Sandstein 06:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leo (That '70s Show)[edit]

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

This was the most significant source I found on the character though I'm not sure how reliable it is. There are some "Where Are They Now?" articles, but those are more on the actor, not the character. For those reasons, I believe this fails WP:GNG; Leo was afterall more of a side character rather than a significant plot figure in the show. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of That '70s Show characters. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of That '70s Show characters. Unreferenced since 2009. A minor character without any in depth coverage. A lot of the other 70s Show character articles could use work as well, either unreferenced as well, or only primary(episode) citations. But for some of those they are main characters that should be able to pass fictional character guidelines, this one doesn't. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient participation so far
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per above. Minor character in the show.Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 10:49, May 13, 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Kaplan[edit]

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

Possibly a non-notable personality. Shira Kaplan is the Co-Founder & CEO of Cyverse. Other than the mention of her in Financial Times while she was still an MBA student, none of the other references can be counted as reliable sources. Diptanshu 💬 16:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Borderline, but there is significant coverage in press. Just enough, maybe. Ross-c (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to encourage participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. The subject's lack of independent notability is evident also in the creators' inability to slap together an opening paragraph! (Although, most probably, this will be amended asap.) Sample of both WP:OR and lousy writing: "Shira Kaplan is an example of a woman working in technology where the ratio of women to men is significantly lower". But I'm willing to lay a bet that it'll stay up. Just wait. :-) The Gnome (talk) 05:46, 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 keep. Sandstein 06:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commune by the Great Wall[edit]

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

Non notable hotel. Highly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is somewhat notable when using the Chinese name of the building complex to search, as i remember there is a TV program that cover the architectural feature of the complex. However, the article may heavily contributed by COI SPA for years, while the original version by Zwx9920010126 in 2007, may involve in copyvio. (source not found yet).

Also, individual buildings of the complex are covered by some architectural book. e.g. "Great (Bamboo) Wall". The Green House: New Directions in Sustainable Architecture, Part 3. p. 101. Matthew_hk t c 12:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 12:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 12:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable hotel that has been featured in multiple travel and architecture magazines and books (such as 1,000 Places to See Before You Die, Travel+Leisure, and ArcSpace). The villas are designed by a number of big-name architects such as Kengo Kuma (see Arch Daily and Kuma's website). It also won an award at the 2002 Venice Bienale (see magazine). Article needs to be cleaned up and promotional content removed (I've deleted the kids club section as a first step), but the subject is notable. -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zanhe if you think it is notable, I will withdraw the nomination, if another Keep voter turns up.scope_creep (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - per this NYT [16], non paid / advert article. Some sort of notability established. --Quek157 (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:, is it sufficient to meet notability now? --Quek157 (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not nominated by me for deletion, my concern was about the article as a COI SPA target of adding promotional material .Matthew_hk t c 11:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: very sorry ping the wrong guy.corrected Quek157 (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk:Additional Comment - I thank the wrong ping, given me a chance to reexamine, major authors are all socks which are banned. I see it not as COI but possible COPYVIO [17]. Given 66.7% I really think a major rewrite is needed. This should be a G12 and a G11. However, should not prejudice the recreation on reliable sources. --Quek157 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC) tagged as such also --Quek157 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC) In addition, should also be a G5. As all major content creators are banned users and socks, with the other edits getting rid of those issues to a very little degree. but given G11/G12, I will not tag G5. --Quek157 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per all the G11/G12 done. And notablity is there --Quek157 (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since subject seems to meet (albeit barely) the notability criteria. Extra vigilance for promotional verbiage is required in such articles. This was infested by it, though I removed most of the stinky, brown mouthed text. -The Gnome (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I would object to say seems to meet as per WP:GNG, the above information are more than enough to meet it. To address advert concerns, I G11 / G12 reported the page and the page it is currently at (before all your removing of information - WP:BOLD or otherwise) is vetted by an admin as non promotional and non copyrighted. --Quek157 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

clear gng, corpdepth met case just to add Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 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 no consensus. There remains no consensus regarding secondary schools that meet verification. There remains no clarity from this discussion, either. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivasa Ramanjuan Concept School[edit]

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

Unsourced (now that Facebook "reference" has been removed), no evidence of notability. PamD 13:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PamD. Kirbanzo (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now including sources --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those bare-URL sources satisfies the notability requirements of WP:ORG? Checking a couple I've found job adverts and very routine directory listings. PamD 18:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources in the current version of the article appear to be user-editable, and therefore not reliable. The other two aren't great either, are they? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The initial version made me believe that the article was created for promotional purposes. It was also titled as "Srhshnk.com", which i moved to the current title. The first version, and the move can be seen here: special:diff/833979798. The current version is the result of DESiegel, and my edits. All the citations are directories, and/or listings. Fails general notability guidelines, as no mention in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has sources. Every secondary school school should be included, so biographies can show education roots. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are sources they don't provide significant coverage that is independent. Could be redirected to Hanamkonda if the school was mentioned in that article. Gab4gab (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced article on accredited secondary school. No good reason to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited English medium secondary school. The usual practice as evidenced by literally 1,000s of AfD closures, is to keep such schools and not create backlogs at AfD with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD backlogs?! Well.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was that RfC, link provided below by PamD. The thousands of AfS's were in the past. We should use our own logic, and shouldnt be part of headless herd. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Zero evidence of notability.NOTDIRECTORY.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, with not enough source material to make an article viable. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, who says Accredited English medium secondary school. The usual practice as evidenced by literally 1,000s of AfD closures, is to keep such schools and not create backlogs at AfD with them. Best said for every accredited English language school. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the 2017 RfC on secondary school notability I !voted in favour of keeping articles on all secondary schools which verifiably existed. But the outcome of the RfC went the other way. If that discussion means anything, then a school which verifiably exists but has no sources apart from routine listings does not pass as notable. Or why did we all spend so much time deliberating? PamD 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No longer an orphan. Added two references.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justdial.com appears to be (yet another) user-editable listings website, and so not a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry (talk): Have you left us with two reliable inline references now?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I replaced the unreliable sources with a reliable one. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry and Dthomsen8: I removed one source as it did not mention this school. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The school is named for Srinivasa Ramanujan, and the reference is to that Indian mathematician being recognized at another Indian secondary school. If that reference is unacceptable to you, I will find references directly to him. My point was that mathematician is revered at several Indian secondary schools, and that inline reference documents that fact. Can I reverse the edit? (I never editwar!)--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a better reference can be found or the article could be reworded? The source gives one example, which doesn't really support the claim in the article that he is recognised at many schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have the present article named for Srinivasa Ramanujan, and we have another reference where the school celebrates him, and I have provided three more references about him.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dthomsen8 and Cordless Larry: This article is about the school, not about the mathematician. Dthomsen8, if you want to add content that the mathematician is revered at many schools, then it should go in his article. An organisation doesnt become notable because it is named after some notable entity. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia practice. In practice, Wikipedia does not delete articles about schools, irrespective of their notability. (E.g. see here.) Keeping all the articles about schools in, for example, the United States, and deleting articles about schools in other countries, such as, for example, this one, would be inconsistent practice. -The Gnome (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanamkonda#Education as it can be described in a sentence (which it already has) in that section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Secondary schools are not exempt, per WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#RfC on secondary school notability§1. Many of the keep arguments here are WP:INHERITED. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer: NAC - please do not relist this again. Let an admin decide what to do. There is enough here for a close depending on the strength of the comments - not necessarily numerical votes, and in any appropriate cases, 'no consensus' is also a valid AfD close. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Keep article is sourced. Also I would like to make a point here regarding an argument above. The language medium a school teaches in is not relevant to it's notability. A school that teaches in English is not more notable than a school that teaches in Telegu for instance.Egaoblai (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced by the existence as an entry in the government directory, which could be covered by a listing of schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Move if kept: as pointed out on talk page, the article title is misspelled! PamD 06:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: yup. If not deleted through AfD, I will delete the faulty title, and move it to correct one. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the correct title?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? If the one source spells Ramanujan the same way as the mathematician's Wikipedia article does, but the school's article uses "Ramanjuan"... ? PamD 15:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has now been running for exactly 3 weeks and it's getting ridiculous for such an insignificant article. Can we now have a close on it one way or another?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI agree with Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk). We should have a decision, even if it is Disagree.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Event though the subject of the article lacks source-supported independent notability, we better close this down without more delays and close it with a KEEP decision. Wikipedia is not deleting articles about schools, irrespective of the schools' notability. That is the established practice. Get it over with. And make sure it doesn't come up for AfD again. -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the practice, but a number of school articles have been deleted lately. I'm not sure why closing this AfD is so urgent, either. Sure, we don't want it to drag on forever, but it's not a bad thing to get as wide an input as possible when consensus is in flux, as it is with secondary schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the practice changing. Do you happen to have any examples of that? -The Gnome (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, The Gnome. Here are three examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cordless Larry. But, then, I have to ask: Where were you in this dicussion? And where were Sandstein and Joe Roe, for that matter? :-) The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about it, The Gnome. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's no reason to urgently close this, and a non-admin CAN close it or relist it. Why try to railroad it through? Jeez. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the person who closes this AfD: There was a lengthy RfC, which resulted in "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." They should also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are two keep votes by Dthomsen8. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:25, 20 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Woo-jae[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment: Meets WP:NHOCKEY #6 as he coached the South Korean team at the 2018 Winter Olympics [18] and 2018 IIHF World Championship [19]. GNG is another story. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nurmsook: He was an assistant to Jim Paek and assistants are not specifically mentioned in NHOCKEY, it just says coaches and managers. I am assuming the guideline means the top level, otherwise anything down to goaltender coaches and equipment managers could meet that. A bit of GNG-worthy sourcing would be nice here as what is currently sourced are non-independent stats pages, team profiles, and WP:ROUTINE game coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We did actually mean assistants when we created it. And probably goaltending coaches too, but equipment managers are not coaching staff so that is going a bit far. It was meant to be the main coaching staff. But GNG does come into play here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's fine, I did not vote due to the uncertainty. I also was not sure if this individual met GNG because I don't trust my searches in Korean. It is certainly possible they meet GNG, but I just wanted some proof for team staff, that despite playing in a top-level tournament, was only there because they were host and would not normally be competing at that level or if coverage was one-off. Thanks for the clarification. Yosemiter (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The second part of your statement is irrelevant though. He still coached at the Olympics, regardless of whether or not he was on the host team and they would usually be there or not. Beyond that, he's also now coached at the top-level IIHF Championship, so him coaching at the highest level of international hockey is no longer even a one-off. He very clearly meets WP:NHOCKEY; the more unclear issue is whether or not he meets WP:GNG. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nurmsook: For the second part, I specifically meant GNG-worthy coverage when I said one-off, as in is covered for more than WP:ONEEVENT. I have found no mentions of him in the current IIHF tournament other than a Elite Prospects and primary-source staff listings. The closest I found is that he is mentioned here and here, and even that is strictly just a mention and nothing about him as a coach. So unless there is something in Korean that I am not finding due to the language barrier search results, this certainly appears to be one of those 1% cases where the subject possibly passes NHOCKEY, but fails GNG. And since GNG trumps SNGs, it would be a deletion candidate. Yosemiter (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Yosemiter: Fair enough, and I've changed my "keep" to "comment" as my original intention here was to flag that Joeykai's rationale that he fails NHOCKEY was not actually factual. I agree that GNG is questionable, but he without question meets NHOCKEY. As you mention, NHOCKEY ultimately doesn't matter if he fails GNG, so that's what the argument should be here. But each of the delete comments (aside from one) in this AfD are based on him failing NHOCKEY which is simply not correct, and that is what I am disputing. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Assistant coaches/managers are not generally considered notable, unless they have something else of notability in their careers, which this guy does not.FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Being one of the assistant coaches at the Olympics does not guarantee notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 05:42, 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. One of the more interesting discussions, but there were no strong arguments for keeping. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line[edit]

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

An off beat topic makes it difficult to know what notability standard to apply beyond GNG but can find no RS to support this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I suppose you should have bundled Mexico-Hermosa Transmission Line and Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak Transmission Line to the nom (maybe it's not late to do it now). They're from the same author, and I don't see anything that would distinguish their notability from this one. (I might offer my opinion on the Afd substance later). No such user (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't interested in completing WP:BEFORE on a second one of those articles at that time. Given my current research suggesting no more GNG than this, I'll wait to see the "precedent" set here before nominating it.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, its an overhead power cable, describing the number of poles used, some of them were painted, some of them were later moved etc. Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
bemused Keep Err... apparently we... do that? Articles on indivdual power lines? There's Lutsk compact overhead powerline, Kita-Iwaki powerline, and several more. Actually, this one seems to have somewhat better sourcing than other examples. So... I guess... ouch. (And I thought the railway people were overdoing it...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings on this topic are a passionate meh but it feels like this is an argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF rather than notability. I'm not seeing GNG as sourcing I found when I originally posted was either primary or less than reliable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS coupled with a... devoted special-interest editor base is how topic-specific notability thresholds are decided, otherwise we wouldn't have dozens of articles on Romanian 3rd League soccer players. But otherwise, meh essentially covers it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus (aka meh) per Elmidae; I'm in the electric engineering field but it would never occur to me that someone would write an article on a power line... but as we have many on roads, railways and creeks, why not? This one has even a fair amount of current and potential sourcing, e.g. a section in Philippines Oil and Gas Sector Business and Investment Opportunities Yearbook, 2009 Transmission Development Plan by NGCP, section in [20], a mention in Philippine Star [21]. Not too much indeed, but then it's a pretty fair coverage for a... power line. No such user (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IMO, the articles Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line and Balintawak-Araneta-Sucat Transmission Line have enough coverage, given that they are situated along the busy thoroughfares and motorways of Central Luzon and Metro Manila. Most especially, the latter has ample coverage when searched in Google, especially a controversy involving the transmission line's rumored harmful effects on health of residents in Makati's Dasmariñas Village (idk if these websites I found on Google are reliable or not)

https://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/migration/Entwicklungsbank-Startseite/Development-Finance/Evaluation/Results-and-Publications/PDF-Dokumente-L-P/Philippines_Sucat_Balintawak_2007.pdf

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20145328.htm

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1l4rb9/MERALCO-submitted-its-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-and-to-Admit-Attached-Reply-on/

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/money/content/136485/power-line-s-removal-to-hurt-rp-investments/story/

https://www.philstar.com/business/2015/01/27/1417079/silent-killer-tamarind-road

http://www.erc.gov.ph/Files/Render/media/NPH,%2520ERC%2520Case%2520No.%25202014-166%2520RC.pdf

Besides, there is an article with similar topic entitled HVDC Leyte–Luzon. But I will leave the matter to other more experienced users.JWilz12345 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Glen Campbell says otherwise. Articles about power lines?! The mind boggles. -The Gnome (talk) 05:40, 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 and salt Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harshada Pathare[edit]

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

This is an article about the author, which is badly formatted, but if I still go through it in search for notability, I only see an international award. The award itself does not seem to have a webpage, the announcement has been published in a blog. I searched for the name of the author and could not find anything convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the contested article has been blocked for an indefinite period of time for multiple-account abuse. -The Gnome (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Created multiple times as draft, sandbox, and as Harshada pathare. Promotional, G11 might be applicable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, fails the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mahal Review is an An International Journal (ISSN 0972- 6004) Devoted To Arts, Literature, Poetry And Culture. The literary journal proudly honors the best written poems and works with cash prize and certificate. For such an honors, the author, Pathare was selected for her poem, "My Lad" in Dec 2011 issue. The author has 3 published books to her credit with noteworthy contribution on Goodreads and Onmogul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsugumar5 (talk • contribs) Moved from the talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)>[reply]

user (SmSugumar nor YMB:-) indeffed for socking. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Added {{salt}} tag. AaronWikia (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt this zombie article, for lack of better means, per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 05:32, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Watterson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR - has not had leads in at least two major productions. Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Article currently sourced only to a community theater website. Chetsford (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. By the way, the article's creator has done little, of anything, in Wikipedia besides posting up this wretchedly put together text. Some folks just can't be arsed. -The Gnome (talk) 05:25, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amon Olive Assemon[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Lacks reliable independent sources. Butch.labajo (talk) 14:09, 25 April 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 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can't vote without knowing which notability guideline this falls under. Szzuk (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also consider redirecting/merging to 2011_World_Women's_Handball_Championship_squads#_Ivory_Coast where she is mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hmlarson (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient participation so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 05:15, 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. Sandstein 06:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Media Journal[edit]

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

PROD was removed by author. Rationale for deletion: Likely predatory journal: website promotes "Research Gate impact factor", a paltry Google Scholar 5-year h-index of 7, indexing in databases that are either fake (e.g., Index Copernicus) or trivial (e.g., OCLC), claims indexing in Scopus (but was in fact delisted in 2016 when Scopus removed a large number of predatory journals), weird page for editorial board with disfigured photographs, ungrammatical English, and more signs of not being a legitimate academic publication (see Think Check Submit). Article lists a smattering of in-passing mentions in some newspapers, but no in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NJOurnals or GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder. Very low quality journal at best, but that is irrelevant when discussing notability. What is relevant is that there are no in-depth sources satisfying GNG and that there is nothing that comes even close to satisfying NJournals. Most telling is perhaps that the journal itself proudly announces that articles in it have been cited 11 times by other academic journals. That's right: 11 times. Anybody who thinks that is impressive should not be in academic publishing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the author of this article. Article needs improvement but subject is notable even for a stub article. If you do a search on Wikipedia for this journal's name you will find it cited many, many times. More references needed but it seems notable enough for a Wikipedia article in my opinion. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this journal has been cited many, many times on Wikipedia then we need to take a close look at those citations, because this does not seem to be a reliable journal. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Whatever the outcome of ths AfD, this is definitely not a reliable source. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been cited about 40 times (see WP:JCW/G12). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, AFAICT, utter fail of WP:NJOURNALS. MIAR: 1550-7521 says its indexed in a few places, but I'm not sure any of those are selective. @DGG: would know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 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. I'm closing this as keep, although I had to think about it for awhile. Many of those arguing "delete" admit there is coverage about it, but argue the subject is too trivial despite coverage. Other "keep" !votes argue the topic is indeed of significant importance, and worthy of encyclopedic attention. On the balance, even though the "delete" votes win numerically 7 to 5, the stronger arguments lie with keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left Bank Outfall Drain[edit]

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

Nothing signifies its encyclopedia value. WP:WWIN. Saqib (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note a similar article by the same author is now deleted : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right Bank Outfall Drain. --Saqib (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are WP:PRIMARY and circulated across internet through sources that are ultimately related with the primary source. Lack of independent coverage in third party sources. Capitals00 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There was some coverage for disaster in 2011, though nothing significant. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources like The Nation, The Express Tribune and Dawn which cannot be categorized primary by any means plus nom did not specify how the subject has no encyclopedic value. Without such clear cut specification saying "no encyclopedic value" is nothing more than mere empty words. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: The nom says "Nothing signifies its encyclopedia value." Coverage exists but I don't think it make sense to have a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article. --Saqib (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom uses mere empty words, the subject easily passes WP:10YT, the structures like canals are supposed to last years.There were delete votes with the reasoning that article relies on primary sources which required a rebuttal. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have standalone articles on drainage canals? --Saqib (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can definitely have if needed be, every subject which is notable can have an article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I asked you for a few examples. I still feel we don't need a standalone article on What I call an ordinary drainage canal per WP:EXISTENCE, even though it has received press coverage. --Saqib (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your nom says "no encyclopedic value" without elaborating how and why, which can be encountered with "yes encyclopedic value" without elaborating further, your nom is poor and it just conveys WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. You created plethora of articles on MPs who merely exist and have nominal coverage in the press. We do not go by the examples on Wikipedia, a drainage canal should not be a pariah on Wikipedia, an article on similar subject not existing should not mean that one can never be created. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have added a friendly search suggestion template to add more coverage, despite the current amount meeting WP:GNG--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to have own article. It doesn't deserve standalone article because the subject has not gained prominence in independent sources. You have to find coverage that has been made exclusively about the drain, that makes it worthwhile enough to create standalone article. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think article has sufficient notability per [22], [23] and other sources [24], so its a keep by me. M A A Z T A L K 00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial coverage. Nothing about this subject justifies having stand alone article in an encyclopedia. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 05:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WWIN. Lack of importance as described above. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--I'm not at all convinced about the coverage levels to possess an independent article.Per alternatives to deletion, I think the article can be minimally merged to some where, pending which the article can be redirected.Any ideas?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric I think the Indus River might be a possible candidate for a merge (though not an ideal one). The idea behind this project was to drain water from the irrigation around this river and it does run parallel to it. Ideally, I think what is needed is a Irrigation in Pakistan article which encapsulates a lot of these small articles which currently do not meet WP:GNG and have few sources. I will throw in a few names Trimmu Barrage, Chashma Barrage, Zam System, Kotri Barrage, Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project. There are other articles which seem to have sufficient content like Sukkur Barrage which can stand on their own but might find mention in this new article. An ideal article to start here would be with Water resources management in Pakistan which can be converted to Irrigation in Pakistan. As a side note, I feel sometimes editors show up to XFD discussions with very little knowledge about the topic itself and spend even less time in what can be done to improve it and more time in arguing one way or the other. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many multiple independent news articles (in English!) in a Before search to have this man-made geographic feature pass WP:GNG. Article could be improved further. SportingFlyer talk 02:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MILL. Nothing significant about the subject. Coverage is also entirely related with the primary sources, nothing significant that would assert notability or importance .Fails WP:GEOFEAT.Razer(talk) 16:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have cleaned up the article and added several citations. SportingFlyer talk 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject is not just Wikinotable but extremely important (in fact, lives depend on it) for millions of people. It appears in sources, both western and local, whose number and extent of coverage renders it worthy of a stand-alone article. (Which, I hasten to add, could use some improvement. Who couldn't?) -The Gnome (talk) 05:13, 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 keep. Renaming is an editorial matter. Sandstein 06:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of organisations in Irish Language Movement[edit]

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

There is no such thing as the Irish Language Movement as organisation. It is just a coat rack. The Banner talk 07:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There definitely is an Irish Language Movement [25], and of course it's not an organisation itself; there are organisations active in it (that this article attempts to list). – Uanfala (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and improve: it's true that there's no distinct organisation called the Irish Language Movement, and I'm guessing that the article creator didn't mean to imply this, since it says in the first paragraph: There is no coordinating organisation or body for the entire movement. A list of notable Irish language organisations is a good idea, but it should be moved to a better title (without redirect), using appropriate lowercase per WP:NCCAPS. I'd suggest List of Irish language organisations. Criteria for inclusion in a standalone list should also be made clearer per WP:LISTCRITERIA: at the moment a sentence at the top of the list reads Most of the below listed organisations are State-funded in the Republic of Ireland and/or Northern Ireland including the six Foras na Gaeilge-funded lead organisations. If the list is going to include only notable organisations in the Republic and Northern Ireland, then the title should reflect this, but if it's meant to also include organisations abroad, then this should be noted either in the article text or in a commented-out entry above the list. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and improve." Certainly a valid list topic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As The Mighty Glen has suggested I agree that the page should be renamed "List of Irish language organisations" or maybe better "List of Irish language promotional organisations". This way Irish language organisations outside of Ireland could be included on it and smaller groups would not be allowed be mentioned on it. Darren J. Prior (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this an article about a distinctly notable subject, and a list that serves an encyclopaedic purpose. I fully agree about the above suggested improvements. -The Gnome (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we rename it so? We haven't had anymore talk on this page in nearly a week and there is a general consensus that the page should be kept but renamed. Can it be renamed to "List of Irish language promotional organisations" so as I recommended?Darren J. Prior (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just yet - as described at WP:AFD, "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name advocated by mr. Prior is a good one. It means that half of the list can be scrapped...

A navigation template looks like a better idea, as that also prevent the excessive long lists of "see also"-subjects added by mr. Prior to many articles. The Banner talk 17:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the See Also links on the pages I have started are relevant to those pages and not just because they are other Irish language organisations and initiatives etc. I agree that a lot of organisations listed on this current page would not qualify as "Irish language promotional organisations". I don't know a lot about navigation templates but if it's a side one to be brought in I would be interested in seeing it. Darren J. Prior (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 18:06, 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 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sulo Kolkka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We are told:

Sulo Kolkka is the nickname given to the unidentified sniper of the Finnish army. This is a man who is said to have over 400 confirmed kills during the Winter War with Russia. / Kolkka is often reported to have killed over 400 [two sources] soldiers and officers during 105 days of the Winter War. As such he would be the second deadliest sniper of the Finnish army in World War II, after Simo Häyhä. / No further information is known of him. This would imply that either he was part of a secret part of the army, or that he is a fictional character. His name is not mentioned in Finnish Defence Forces archives, newspapers or magazines of the era. His name is hard to find even in post-war fictional war literature, and there exist no photographs of him. When compared to legendary real-life sniper Häyhä, whose name was used excessively for promotional purposes, it is reasonable to presume that there was no sniper named Sulo Kolkka.

The two sources are a 1998 book about guns (not about people using them), which I'll freely admit that I haven't seen, and a web page with the general title "Snipers in history" that doesn't seem to be available and that isn't at Wayback. Bits and pieces of the relevant website are at Wayback: it seems to be mostly a private website by one Scott Powers.

The article started as a translation from fi:Sulo Kolkka (sotilashahmo). This too cites two sources: the book mentioned above, and a vast web page (in Finnish) which I cannot read but which I'd guess is a multiple-author blog, or similar, and which mentions Kolkka briefly in two of its paragraphs.

So he probably didn't exist. Well, neither did Spring-heeled Jack. Mere non-existence doesn't damn a subject to deletion: however silly the notion of "Spring-heeled Jack", there's material about him. Googling for sulo kolkka sniper does bring up a couple of books at Google. But they're very unimpressive. (For one thing, they don't cite their sources.)

Fiction of trivial notability that, if simply deleted, is likely to be re-recreated by some well-meaning if rather simple-minded person who reads of the name in one of the feeble "sources" (e.g the Japanese WP article about this non-person; an article with a grand total of zero sources). Therefore salt. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete this article about an evidently important subject, which, however, is not Wikinotable. As the article's text itself states: The subject's name "is not mentioned in Finnish Defence Forces archives, newspapers or magazines of the era. His name is hard to find even in post-war fictional war literature, and there exist no photographs of him. When compared to legendary real-life sniper Häyhä...it is reasonable to presume that there was no sniper named Sulo Kolkka." That's pretty much conclusive, as far as sourcing is concerned. If reliable sources are unearthed about this person/persona, we might want to reconsider. -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable war-time legend. Fictional legends could be notable, but this didn't even elevate to that status - also there was no need to because a real sniper was credited with more kills during the same war. --Pudeo (talk) 23:53, 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 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuji Sakamoto[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO Atlantic306 (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO, or WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 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 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Yassin[edit]

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

Spam article created by an account that is identified as the subject's PR, edited primarily by SPAs, and almost entirely self-sourced. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. Clicked the links on half-a-dozen or so of his books; they all came up with this notice [26]. I Note that it is inconceivable that a man could have written 25 books on titles ranging from Management of Child Health Programs in Developing Countries to Master of Science in Epidemiology and Biostatistics.' I might guess that they are paper topics, except that there are lot of papers listed, too. Many of the papers are mere titles (no link, no Journal name given.) Others look real; the ones I checked had very few citations, but it is routine for a public health researcher to publish a lot without being notable. Noting that "Khaled Yassin" is quite a common name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete took a closer look at this self-sourced piece of self-PROMO, and I can see no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional text per nomination. Wikipedia's paid editors are a busy lot. -The Gnome (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so heavily puffed up that it's hard to find anything of significance among all the long-winded descriptions of non-notable activity. But I don't see any evidence of passing WP:PROF or other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 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 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Ichigo[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The suicide attempts and death do not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO and also has a large amount of unwarranted undue personal information Atlantic306 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The subject does not meet WP:PORNBIO, although the article is well written and the, extensive indeed, information is robustly presented. There's a slight chance the subject's death by suicide might have been notable, in which case one might want to reconsider, but I do not speak Japanese. -The Gnome (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Miura[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hey, I tried to nominated Wayne Simpson (ice hockey) for speedy deletion (A7), but was declined by @18abruce: Wayne Simpson passes NHOCKEY with 224 AHL games. – AaronWikia (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG, he committed to Lake Superior State University and represented Japan national team at the 2018 IIHF World Championship Division I Group B tournament. – AaronWikia (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those things actually meets NHOCKEY or GNG. Joeykai (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, from WP: NHOCKEY, "Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year (Note: playing in lower pools that do not actually contest for the World Champion title is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)." Joeykai (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He very clearly fails NHOCKEY and I doubt a case for GNG can be found. Why I was specifically brought into the discussion, and what Wayne Simpson has to do with this article, is beyond mystifying. To say more is to risk retribution and harassment from the article creator, so I will leave it at that.18abruce (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like 18abruce, I am at a loss to figure how he or Wayne Simpson figures into this AfD of an unrelated NN amateur hockey player, and suggest that AaronWikia has been involved in too many hockey-related deletion discussions and article creations to still have no idea what the provisions of WP:NHOCKEY are. Ravenswing 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: Do you think I am an "editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations" is offensive? – AaronWikia (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence makes no sense. And that quote which I assume is from someone is pretty accurate, you have a very dubious history of article creations when it comes to hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Specifically, from WP:NHOCKEY, should be moved to Draft:Yuki Miura (without leaving redirect). – AaronWikia (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 10:54, 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 keep. But cleanup is still needed; most everything is sourced to statutes, i.e., primary sources. Sandstein 06:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal procedure in California[edit]

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

Totally uncited. Delete as per WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cite everything before the end of the weekend. --Hh73wiki (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. If you do, you might want to provide also evidence of the subject's Wikinotability per the relevant criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this long, well formed essay about a subject whose notability is entirely unsupported by sources. -The Gnome (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:V, only quotations and controversial material requires citations. The topic is clearly not original because there are entire books written about it; a selection follows. Please see WP:BEFORE, WP:BITE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Criminal Procedure for California
California Criminal Procedure
California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice
Levenson on California Criminal Procedure
Criminal Procedures in California
California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice
California Criminal Law and Procedure
California Criminal Procedure Workbook

Keep No source provided does not equal WP:OR. Notability is not determined by the absence of sources in the article, but by their absence in a search per WP:NEXIST. A quick look in Google Books clearly shows many sources - [27], the subject is therefore notable. The question is therefore if it is OR, and there is no indication that it is by a quick glance at some of the sites in a search [28], and it has not been shown to be be so. It is possible there may be omissions and errors when examined closely, but these can be fixed if present. Hzh (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Goes without saying the topic is notable. I included some sources from legal sites and California pretrial procedures as an external link Freetheangels (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the vast majority of citations that were missing. As an aside regarding notability, there are 1.2 million arrests made every year in California. Hh73wiki (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This topic is clearly notable. California has the largest judiciary in the United States, and as others have mentioned, many books have been written on this topic. A need for improvement is not the same as a need for deletion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:04, 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.