Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 May	20 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. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaylen Arnold[edit]

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

It does not seem like the subject is very notable. The article is awfully promotional as well as some of the sources. It definitely seems like the creator of the article may have a connection to the subject. Andise1 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article is too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst the style and tone of the article is misjudged and needs a lot of work to make it less self-promotional, I can see that a 9-year-old setting up the Jaylen's Challenge Foundation is pretty notable and returns quite a few hits when I Google it. Maybe re-write the page about the Foudnation itself and re-direct Jaylen Arnold to it. The Foundation is more notable than the child who created it. Darthamender (talk) 15:29, 26 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) 17:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ziesha Nancy[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG, It's also worth nothing the creator has been recreating previously deleted articles and I have a feeling this is another however the logs show nothing which means it could've been at another article name, Anyway fails NACTOR & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 21:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role, and it doesn't appear tp be a starring role, does not meet out standards for actors. And she doesn't have substantial coverage either. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One role and not even a significant role clearly does not meet the notability guidelines for actors. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 23:44, 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) 17:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melecs[edit]

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

This is a translation of the deWP article, from the same contributor, in deWP since 2016, and apparently never challenged there. I do not think it meets our rules for notability, but it is extremely unusual for this to be the case for an article in the deWP, so I am bringing it here for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No credible claim of significance, borderline promotional and probable COI. Deb (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article about a company, with a WP:CSD previously removed by the article creator. Aside from the brochureware material linked from the article, I found one item about the firm's use of industrial robotics ("Factory", 12 March 2018) but I don't see that or anything else as sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 24 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 17:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullata (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:PTM. None of these species' articles mentions that it is called a "bullata". –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep either as a disambiguation page or as an entry on the Latin word bullata and the many species named using the terminology. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a lot of these - see Category:Taxonomy disambiguation pages - but they are, as the nom has noted, technically speaking partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should they be list articles instead? If something has a category doesn't that indicate it's listworthy? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are like this article (common last name, e.g. Febrifugum), some have a common first name (e.g. Erythrocarpus) and some are legitimate dab pages (e.g. Pholidota (disambiguation)), so no. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, invalid dab page since none of these species are ever referred to as a "bullata". However, considering a genus is the primary topic, it would probably make sense to link to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names via a hatnote and add this term there. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Species names never stand alone. They are always accompanied by the genus name (or an abbreviated genus name). A hatnote to an entry at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names would serve readers better. Plantdrew (talk) 01:10, 22 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 Human, Space, Time and Human. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is God?[edit]

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

Film doesn't exist and fails WP:NFILM: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." All references are from 2015 or 2016, with nothing from 2017 and 2018. The article states "It satrs Mina Fujii, Keun-Suk Jan, Zhang Ziyi, Gong Li" but the reference only says "The director is also currently casting local actors, and has expressed his interest in working with superstars such as Zhang Ziyi and Gong Li." Timmyshin (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the very least per WP:TOOSOON. Considering that the sources are 2 and 3 years old this may be caught in development hell or may have been abandoned. I could not find any info one way or the other. MarnetteD|Talk 04:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Human, Space, Time and Human. Found that via the director’s IMDB, and pretty sure it’s the same film: the cast mostly matches and reading a review here it has e.g. just such a moment is sneeringly delivered by the most cartoonishly repellent of the film’s many cardboard villains, a vaguely defined politician who cackles, “There is no God!” at the rough midpoint of this interminable, grimy two hours, Strongly suggests to me that Who Is God? ended up made as this film.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as per above, note international release is there but no korean release as per [1]. The Korean release is likely to be WP:SNOW due to #MeToo unless Kim Ki-duk do a clear and unequivocal apology and clarifications. (off topic) --Quek157 (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect As per the other's arguments and WP:TOOSOON.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:24, 23 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 17:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California International University[edit]

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

Article on unaccredited "university" created by COI SPA, with no indication of notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG, referenced solely by its own website and Facebook (apart from the non-accreditation ref I added), and no significant coverage online in WP:RS. It's a school of some sort though, so ineligible for speedy A7. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't yet meet the notability requirements for a university. Mostly promotional. Ajf773 (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or *Merge - No outside references list or should be updated and posted. Truthspeakerknows (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be part of International Education Corporation (deleted in 2011 as spam) so if its kept it should be renamed for the parent company. Seems to be an educational business rather than a proper university. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:53, 25 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 17:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midge and Bob Pinciotti[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012, this article is entirely sourced to the series' episodes themselves; worst still, a before search didn't yield substantial sources. This looks more like a page written by a fan set in the That 70's Show universe rather than an encyclopedic entry. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding plenty of coverage of these fictional characters for example here. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where? All I see in that search are "Where are they now?" stories about the actors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy that prohibits where are they now type coverage? My reading of the notability pages is that lasting coverage is a clear indicator of notability. And indeed articles such as this one are quite substantial. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is exceptionally poorly referenced and consists of original research by a dedicated fan. This violates policy. FloridaArmy, a "where are they now?" article published in a reliable source might be acceptable if it devoted significant coverage to the fictional characters as opposed to the actors who played those characters. The distinction is critical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's far more than one fan. More than 100 editors have edited the article. The content is based on plot information from episodes, which are acceptable primary sources so it's not OR and therfore doesn't violate policy. It does lack real world treatment of the characters so there is an issue there though. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, the article you describe as "quite substantial" is all about the actor, and mentions the character only fleetingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of That '70s Show characters. This is far, far beyond the amount of in-universe information that is acceptable, and there's no other referencing. A HuffPost article about the actor is not the type of thing that will make the character meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles about the an actor do not make a character they played notable. If lots of fans doing editing here was a reason to keep articles, then we would have never deleted any article that mentioned anything at all related to Star Wars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 23 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. – Joe (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Sunar[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reason, below:

Part of a set of cricket biography articles that have been created by the same user, all of which fail WP:NCRIC. See the related discussion at WT:CIRC, and the user's talkpage. The user has been advised on what the minimum requirements are for these type of articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manjul Bhattarai is an Umpire , Kajal Shrestha, Sonu Khadka and Rekha Rawal has played worldcup T20 Qualifier as you can check there references and rest are thew U-19 worldcup players. Let me tell you U-19 worldcup also listed on ICC worldcup. I have created this articles by lots of hard effort. @Lugnuts: did you checked all the references before submitting for AFD ? Kushal Bhurtel is the player who have played ICC worldcup qualifier too. So, I request admins to take some serious action aganist this user. MTKASH^{TALK Contribs} 19:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kushal Bhurtel was only named as a reserve for 2 games in the World Cricket League games: he didn't actually play. How about you check all your articles for untrue statements / exaggerations, as I've found similar errors in at least 4 of them. Spike 'em (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - weak only due to the sheer volume of articles, not all of which I have checked. U-19 cricketers (which several of these are) are not notable, and there are many spelling and other errors as well. Perhaps this editor's page creations should be discussed at WP:ANI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. They've been made aware of the notability requirements, so there's a red-flag on any future creations. I also suspect that this isn't their first account on WP, but that's another issue which will be dealt with separately. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been through all the articles; the only ones I'm unsure on are the female players. I don't know how we would classify the qualifiers they have played, and whether they would be at a similar level to the final clause of WP:CRIN : "has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above" They are T20 games, whereas WCL is 50-overs. There are many errors in the articles listed with false claims of notability. I've removed as many as I can, though I have undoubtably missed some. Spike 'em (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spike. I hadn't really dug any deeper than the basic failing of N:CRIC, but the extra incorrect BLP issues is a bigger concern. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot. We really need to lock at writing a new cricket notability criteria that will make it even easier to get rid of even more articles on non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 26 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. – Joe (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard F. Trump[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Article is written in an almost promotional format. SportingFlyer talk 16:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPOL isn't met, and the existing referencing isn't sufficient. It's almost a WP:BLP1E (that event being his bizarre resignation), a later court settlement regarding a debt shouldn't be mentioned at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hagerstown is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist, but there's nowhere near enough sourcing here to get him actually satisfy NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable politician who also fails to meet WP:GNG. The only event of any consequence was his resignation and that would fall under WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is indeed a non-notable politician.TH1980 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article reads like a campaign broucher. It in no way demonstrates that Trump was a notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 26 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. – Joe (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H2O Asset Management[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable hedge fund. Singificant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, WP:SPIP and / or insufficient i.e. this apparent interview with the CEO WSJ. Created by Special:Contributions/Gentle_rififi with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are not finding better than routine announcements relating to this firm (such as recent routine fund closures) and to Natixis/Ostrum Asset Management (such as "Les Echos" Jan 2018). Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill company, routine announcements, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 - non-notable Web Content. Michael Greiner 16:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criminals (2018 Webdrama)[edit]

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

Article is about a future planned non-notable web content - was rejected at AfC 4 times, editor is creator and using Wikipedia to promote own work KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No evidence that this passes WP:GNG, should be speedy deleted per WP:A7. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 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. – Joe (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Henderson[edit]

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

No references to show notability, author SaimaAb deleted all content themselves but it was reinstated. The no longer appear to be even running as not on list and old profile now dead link. KylieTastic (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletee I don't see an assertion of notability of sources to support one. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections per se — a person has to win election and thereby hold office to be considered notable as a politician, and the only other ways to get a candidate into Wikipedia are to show that either (a) she already had enough preexisting notability for other reasons besides her candidacy to qualify for an article on those grounds, or (b) her candidacy is generating so much more coverage than everybody else's candidacy that she has a credible claim to being special. But neither of those conditions are in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians. See WP:POLITICIAN. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 00:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable unelected candidate. Wikipedia is not a place to publish every candidates campaign broucher. That said, there are several past unelected candidates to the US House of Representatives we have articles on who clearly fail notability guidelines. It would be good if someone went through and nominated these articles for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 23 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. – Joe (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FareBuzz[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable travel agency. Significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 16:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs are good i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn richard1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Just routine coverage in primary sources. No indepth coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, fails WP:SPIP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 21 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. So Why 09:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Shukla[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. My concern was Appears to fail WP:SOLDIER - Shaurya Chakra is a 3rd level gallantry award. The other refs might be a case of NotNews Gbawden (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. See [2][3]. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes some notability. 18:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Truthspeakerknows (talk)
Keep since subject meets criterion #4: Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign. -The Gnome (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - he certainly meets WP:GNG from the number of suitable refs available. I am not sure however that he does meet point 4 in WP:SOLDIER as mooted by The Gnome - would the operation be considered a major battle? Do we have any suggested guidelines on what makes a battle major? If it is sufficient to make it suitable to be in the same category as a campaign, very substantial would seem logical, but I can't be positive. Clarity? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails SOLDIER and WP:NOTNEWS. The military gave him only a 3rd level award for his actions. That speaks volumes. Also, it's very doubtful that press coverage will be long-lasting. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 14 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]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER either; 3rd level award does not help. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG And #4 WP:NSOLDIER Razer(talk) 19:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems to meet General Notability Guideline. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge also possible with Sameer Tiger (possibly to a "killing of" article). Subject doesn't pass presumed on WP:SOLDIER (heading the operation to kill Sameer Tiger would not SOLDIER(4)). There is some coverage of this encounter (it seems Tiger or his killing at least do pass GNG) - leading to coverage of Shukla - however this is of a WP:BLP1E nature, and coverage isn't wide/in-depth enough to warrant a 1E exception. Should Shukla do something else that is notable (becoming a 2E), or advance in rank, he might be notable in the future. As is - TOOSOON.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant global and national coverage of the subject exists. Coverage further concerns more than just one aspect.[4] Lorstaking (talk) 10:05, 25 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodlands Swim Team[edit]

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

A local swim team for a city of about 100,000. Has had some State-wide success, and claiming to have sent 25 swimmers to Olympic trials (just the trials not the actual Olympics). Some degree of swimming-centric and Texas coverage as one would expect, but I don't see the organization to be notable enough to have an article. Although not unimportant enough to be eligible for speedy delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, tentatively, or Keep. This topic may be notable enough to Keep on its own, and anyhow it should not be outright deleted because a good wp:ATD is available: merge to a list-article on swim clubs in the U.S. Too many PRODs and AFDs just eliminate material; we should look for alternatives to deletion; merger to list-articles is often a good one. Sometimes that requires just going ahead and creating the list-article, which I'll do right now. List of swim teams in the United States or List of swim clubs in the United States, corresponding to Category:Swim teams in the United States which currently has 10 members:
I'm not going to put too much effort into the list-article right now, but the overall topic is clearly notable IMHO. Swim clubs in the U.S. are important for developing Olympic athletes, for example, and there will plenty of coverage about that. Similarly I would think that track and field clubs would be important, too, but I am not seeing a corresponding category within Category:Sports teams in the United States by sport. --Doncram (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable swim team with statewide success covered substantially in reliable indeoendent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:37, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arado E.500[edit]

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

Cannot see any reason why this 'paper plane' should be notable. Most aircraft manufacturers have as many unbuilt designs as ones that actually flew. TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any paper project should pass the usual WP:GNG guidelines. The E 500 is certainly splashed around the enthusiast world, but I don't see that a few fan websites, scraped-together self-published books and plastic kits make it notable. The question must be, is it described in the reliable historical works on Arado? Sorry I don't know the answer to that, can anybody enlighten? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One might have to resort to books because the internet did not become into common use until more than 50 years later. Anyone have any books? Vanguard10 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that its a paper (ok, wooden mockup) machine, I don't see that there is likely to be much more about the thing than the present article content; maybe the best solution is to merge to the article on Arado. Like most manufacturer articles there is a long list of projects, & I think a brief description for each type would be of interest.TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be so sure. A great deal of material on WWII (and subsequent) paper projects has been published since various government secret document stashes have been made public. And memoirs of surviving staff are also finding a ready market. For example Category:Blohm & Voss aircraft lists almost as many notable paper "P" projects as it does types which were actually built. That it reached mock-up stage in government-controlled Nazi Germany suggests that there is a history to be unearthed. Whether it has been already is what I do not know. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowarra, Heinz J. (1993). Die Deutsche Luftruestung 1933–1945 Vol.1 – AEG-Dornier (in German). Koblenz: Bernard & Graefe Verlag. pp. 79–80. ISBN 978-3-7637-5464-9. for one.--Petebutt (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Many unbuilt military projects are notable - particularly when the design is "odd" or "groundbreaking" (which this one was - though a few of these turret-fighters (see Category:Turret fighters) - did reach production). Even unrealized projects may have represented a rather large R&D expenditure (in fact - we have quite a bit of contemporary "in development projects" on Wikipedia now. In this case - we have coverage[5][6][7] - and this meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage coted by Icewhiz above. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination does not seem to be based on policy, but rather seems to be based on the most common WP:arguments to avoid -- namely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a policy based comment on the article rather than resorting to attacking the nominator?2605:8D80:6A9:740:EF65:8B14:1FAC:9B5A (talk) 14:36, 21 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. – Joe (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nexit Ventures[edit]

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

While the list of references here looks impressive by the numbers, an examination doesn't bear that out. Only references 1, 2, 12, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26 even mention Nexit Ventures. All but 24 and 26 are name drops on Crunchbase with no detail, 24 is also a name drop with no detail at all, and 26 is the company's own website. A search turns up nothing more substantial aside from a few press releases. The subject clearly fails the notability criteria, both generally and for corporations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill Venture company trying to make a buck. Notability is not inherited so their list of investments does not confer a jot of notability on the VC firm itself. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, just the usual promotional stuff and announcements. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 23 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. No prejudice against redirection should anyone feel so compelled. czar 14:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foodflation[edit]

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

From the talk page: I can't find the previous discussion for its nomination. Seems like a clearly silly, biased article... 47.139.8.118 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC) . Note that I have no opinion on the merits of the nomination, but it seems valid, therefore I create this page. Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator tells us plainly that he has "no opinion". Per WP:BEFORE, they should not then be starting an AFD because of some half-baked, anonymous opinion found on a talk page. The topic is notable and there are clearly alternatives to deletion such as merger with food prices. Andrew D. (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid nomination, and I would object speedy keeping it on procedural grounds, if this is what you mean.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, this has to be the most ridiculous AFD comment I've seen you make so far; Ymblanter clearly stated they were completing the nomination for an anonymous editor. You should withdraw the above comment, as it will probably be ignored by the closer anyway. If you don't, then I really think you will be TBANned from AFDs within the next month. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, as I said, I object to speedy keeping the article, I also think that Andrew is in his right to !vote keep on the basis that the article can be merged into another article. Let us have the AfD run its course and see what the opinions are.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Why I didn't !vote, I don't have an opinion either way. I'm not saying Andrew is wrong that the page could be merged (although AFD has always recognized that as a possible outcome, and Andrew didn't !vote that way), but if you look at his !voting record he throws buzzwords like BEFORE, BROADCONCEPT and so on around without much care for how they apply or even if his comments look completely ridiculous, and sometimes it looks like he has not read either the article or the AFD nomination before !voting. (Also, my reference to a TBAN is not based solely on this: he also has a tendency to show up on AFDs of articles in highly specialized topic areas he knows nothing about, pretending to be familiar with the literature, and then when challenged either not replying or continuing to double down in order to confuse the closer by making them think that topic-familiar editors are in disagreement.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in this case as a receiving side I do not have any serious problems with his comment as soon as the closer takes the arguments properly into account. (No opinion on the topic ban etc).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really want to go into whether or not quoting some random IP for an AFD nomination is a good idea or not, but YMblanter knows the way and the page was pretty bad beofre I gutted it. I look it up in GNews and found 2 major sources mentioning it, so it is real and has existed since at least 2011, not just Made Up One Day. However, only its only 2, not enough to pass the GNG, but I do think a redirect might be suitable; Food politics, working poor, famine, Global hunger index, and or famine scales may be valid targets. Personally I am for Famine Scales or Famine. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism with an entry that doesn't make sense. FloridaArmy (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 23 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 13:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Torento-no-kami[edit]

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

The topic is fairly obviously bogus. No evidence has been given that there is a god with such a name, and the creator has a history of evasive comments, misleading edit summaries. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Should just be deleted no proper sources (Even though they do exist.)[reply]

YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/Torentonokami/— Note to closing admin: YodogawaKamlyn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (by initiator) The creator has now ostensibly decided to give up, but by blanking the page, including the AfD notice, so following none of the procedures indicated. But none of this has been done in good faith ("...no proper sources (Even though they do exist.)": no, there has never been any external evidence whatsoever of this "Torento"), and the user's contributions to Japanese wikipedia remain: ja:日本の神の一覧 (the list of deities) and the separate article ja:トレントの上. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I, do not fully agree with the above comment all edits by me have been removed from Wikipedia.org space. I agree to disagree and move to more important articles. YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~as currently has no content~~ as one ref fails to demonstrate notability. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bogus.

トレント (Torento) as spelled is a non-Japanese, non-Chinese name, and it is beyond unlikely that a Japanese Shinto god would have an un-nativized foreign name.
Some of this user's edits about this so-called Torento god link instead to Amaterasu, strongly suggesting profound confusion at best, or (more likely) vandalism. C.f. the wikitext at de:User_talk:YodogawaKamlyn.
The image is of Sakurayama Shrine in Morioka, Iwate Prefecture. The image caption at [[File:Sakurayama_Shrine.png]] clearly lists トレントの神 (Torento no kami, where kami means "god, deity"), not トレントの上 (Torento no kami, parseable as "upstream of the Trent river"), so even if this were a valid article, the Japanese spelling is incorrect.
The name of the uploader of that photo is given as Kobayashi Kazuo, linking through to User:YodogawaKamlyn. Despite the Japanese-ness of the name Kobayashi Kazuo, the user doesn't seem to write Japanese very well. Their contributions to the JA WP are described by the editors there as machine translation in the deletion discussion for the JA version of this same Torento no kami page, where the editors also discuss the apparent lack of Japanese language ability, and this user's EN WP user page talks about Korean, but makes no mention of Japanese.
Neither the originally plagiarized article at https://en.japantravel.com/iwate/sakurayama-shrine/3378 nor the Sakurayama Jinja website itself (in Japanese) mention anything about "Torento". As noted both in the JA WP article and on the shrine website's "history" page, the shrine is dedicated to Awaji-maru Daimyōjin, where Awaji maru is the name of the section of Morioka Castle where the shrine is located (see Morioka_Castle#Structures_and_gardens), and Daimyōjin is a kind of generic title for various deities (see the linked page). Nothing about any Torento.
The shrine was dedicated in 1749, well before either the toponym and English and Scottish surname "Trent", or the Italian city name "Trento" (from either of which Torento could derive) would have been known in Japan outside of any areas where contact with foreigners was more common (such as Nagasaki). Morioka is very far away from such areas.

Not only is the Torento-no-kami page itself problematic, but in addition, nothing about this user's conduct across several wikis suggests that this user is acting in good faith. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Why did you mention me when I already agreed to delete the page/article? YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Eiríkr Útlendi[reply]

Comment You don't have the ability to delete the article and as the creator of it being mentioned is nothing out of the ordinary. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RichardWeiss I'm fairly sure , the Admin(s) will remove it , I never said I had any ability. I made a few bad choices and have already owned up too it and undid my reversions YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They might or might not, you have to understand that when you publish an article on wikipedia you don't have the right to delete it. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you claim to want the page deleted, and to have "undone your [edits]", why are you still adding references to the article - the latest: "Yujiro, Fukuyama Yujiro (2017). Tales of Japanese History." Does this book mention this claimed "Torento-no-kami"? If not why would you add it in good faith to the article? Have you also gone and cleaned up your minor vandalism to ja:WP (inserting random spaces into Japanese text)? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It actually does , (I'm using these as a learning experience , I also edit it cause it's going to get deleted anyway.) and Yes, I went and cleaned the ja:WP you can check my contribution if yo need too verify. YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just deleted your last addition to this page (here it is: "Also my comment above shows *Delete. Imaginatorium"). Do not add text after your signature, especially when it includes other people's user names. | The "book" you cited was apparently "published" yesterday, cannot be found on ISBN searches, and from this Amazon page looks awfully like it is self-published. By you, perhaps? | Thank you for removing the vandalism from ja:WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Book is A Book , (and I'm not saying it was me.) and no problem about the vandalism. YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amazon's "Look Inside" feature allows users to see some of the actual writing. It is, frankly, awful, and includes gems like this:

Japanese traditional knowledge

Introduction wherever we have a tendency to|can we|will we} come back from? what is going to happen to United States of America after we die? however ought we to live our lives? we tend to still raise these queries nowadays. In fact, the will to raise them could also be one amongst the items that creates United States of America human.

I'll stop there. This book has clearly never been competently edited. I'll hazard the guess that the rest of the content is similarly of dubious quality. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fiction. Most hilarious ingredient within what's above: this link, reinforced by the observation that "A Book is A Book". Most alarming: "I agree to disagree and move to more important articles"; no, YodogawaKamlyn, please keep well away from more important articles. -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 22 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 13:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy (rapper)[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. Tagged since May 2012 as needing more sources, but none forthcoming. Two sources are blogs, other is a dead link. Netoholic @ 07:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted from Spanish Wikipedia in 2012. If not notable in his native language, it's hard to see notability in English. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "If not notable in his native language, it's hard to see notability in English." not necessarily, as a lot can happen in 6 years (not that im saying this is the case here). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are found. So far the best source is this, a blurb from a magazine talking about the release of one of his mixtapes; it contains basically no other info about the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable artist. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. » Z0 | talk 08:18, 26 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 speedily deleted by Biblioworm per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aya Ashraf[edit]

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

Blogger or social media users are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they meet GNG. The subject does not even have an article in Arabic language WP. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person in English so I don't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneWorkingAccount (talk • contribs) 10:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G5. Creator is a sock of indef-blocked RushdySulivan (see SPI). --Finngall ^talk 03:45, 21 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 11:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talal Malik (radio presenter)[edit]

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

The sole reference given here is an interview. I did a google search on "Talal Malik" in the news, and got three pages of hits... None of them discuss this Talal Malik. There are no interlanguage links anywhere, in Arabic or otherwise. If he is notable, I sure can't verify it, but if he is, then this article should probably be moved over to just "Talal Malik" and away from the radio presenter bit. A loose noose (talk) 09:55, 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 Radio-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 Kuwait-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio presenters are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it — the sole footnoted reference here is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself, which is a type of source that we can use for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources but not a source that brings the GNG in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) » Z0 | talk 08:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The List (magazine)[edit]

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

Couldn't find reliable sources – Lionel^(talk) 07:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article at the point of nomination has been very much a present-ist list of the publication's wares; I have begun adding some referenced material on its history. (Note too the Sunday Herald's headline description of it as "the venerable what's on guide".) I am wary that the Herald and BBC references might be considered as coverage triggered by announcements, hence the "weak" part of my "keep" opinion. (There is also the OBE award to the publisher for "services to the arts and culture"[8], but that would fall under WP:NOTINHERITED.) AllyD (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per AllyD's comments and article improvement. Still needs support, though. -The Gnome (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per comments above notability does seem to be shown, particularly following recent improvements to the article. Dunarc (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the article was nominated a few references have been added, but the article is still in poor shape. There are several reasons why finding sources for this publication is difficult. Most newspapers have listings sections, some even have a section called "The List". Of the sources that a person might look to find coverage of The List, some are competing with this publication for a share of the audience. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:56, 25 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 11:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Theatre of Charlotte[edit]

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

This article doesn't seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. I checked the previous deletion discussion, and most of what is there to support the "keep" side is either [now] dead links or is Google hits counts, which are not defacto evidence of notability. A few "keep" voters emphasized the number of years the theater has been around-- this is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion.

The references in the article as it stands now appear to be thin at best. The "Medallion" award from the Children's Theatre Foundation of America is a non-notable award that comes from a non-notable organization; the ref offered to support the claim that this group ranks in the "top five" children's theatres in the country (in terms of audience attendance) is a dead link (not that audience attendance by itself is necessarily a good measure of notability anyway); the claim of having received "accolades on the national, state and local levels" has no citation for these various other awards. The remainder of the references appear to be mentions in passing-- I did not find substantive non-trivial discussion of the theatre in reliable independent published sources. Mention, yes; discussion, not so much. I also did a search for other Children's Theatre groups that have articles on Wikipedia: there weren't any. Maybe the one group we do have an article on isn't warranted either? A loose noose (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the prior AfD discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Theater of Charlotte and was closed as "keep" on 5 June 2009. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since 2009 we have realized that most children's theatres are not notable, along with many other things. Having stand alone articles on every organization ever is not doable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 23 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. A Train^talk 09:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Stevens[edit]

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

Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only available sources are routine sports reporting.--Rockchalk7 17 03:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep due to multiple sources being found beyond routine sports reporting allowing him to pass WP:GNG.--Rockchalk7 17 16:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification I was referring to the sources that the user identifying themselves as "Eddy" has found.--Rockchalk7 17 16:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable college basketball player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NCOLLATH. Created by an editor with a history of dubious basketball-related article creations. – AaronWikia (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just basketball. Looking through the editors talkpage they have had several created articles nominated for deletion, at least half appeared to plagiarism.--Rockchalk7 17 06:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with multiple coverage in reliable sources : [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Also was NIT MVP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established. See above. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources provided are only routine and most are non-independent. Just saying. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on which ones are non-independent? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Pennlive ones, I would imagine. Deb (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - pennlive is The Patriot-News, hence it is independent. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was just guessing. This is not my field. Deb (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is routine, not indepth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 25 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. A Train^talk 09:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hewitt (baseball)[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would argue he meets GNG as per ample coverage (including several extended feature stories) in a variety of newspapers and other reliable sources. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Go Phightins! 23:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NBASEBALL and to me the only one of the articles above that goes to GNG is the Sielski article. The rest are something nearly all first round draft picks have written about them and thus to me NBASEBALL should have some deference (or else be amended that being a first round pick of an MLB team, and possibly other leagues, is enough for notability). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, GNG supersedes NBASEBALL. We can argue over whether this meets GNG, but NBASEBALL is certainly not owed any respect up against GNG; in fact, the opposite is true. Also, I would strongly argue that the New York Daily News piece certainly contributes to GNG as do the profiles in the smattering of newspapers that have written profiles essentially on what happened to this first round pick that went nowhere. These types of pieces don't get written on every other minor league baseball player, which indicates that this one is particularly notable. Obviously, because he never played in the major leagues, he doesn't pass NBASEBALL. I would argue, however, that -- with a similar level of obviousness -- the significant coverage in numerous reliable secondary sources confers notability as per GNG. Go Phightins! 04:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One more source: he's discussed for about a paragraph and a half as emblematic of the Phillies' drafting philosophy in this book. [22] (not sure if that link will point to the page, but it's pp. 140-41 Go Phightins! 04:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the sources are WP:MILL with the only one that's really not being the feature article on him failing. I don't think that gets him near the WP:GNG line. SportingFlyer talk 04:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that several articles also cited move towards that threshold. Feature article on his juxtaposition with other Phillies prospects Article on his release that discuss the Phillies' drafting philosophy ... that drafting philosophy clearly changed, in part, due to picks like Hewitt, as articles such as these, also in mainstream reliable sources, discuss at length [23] [24]. I am not trying to be pedantic or protective since I wrote this article like five years ago -- I hardly edit anymore -- but it just seems to me like this is a fairly obvious case of meeting GNG by being a unique case that is covered directly in the literature on the team plus a few articles on him specifically. That's FAR more than the run-of-the-mill coverage minor leaguers get in game write-ups from local newspapers. That's not what this coverage is (although there's plenty of that too; I would agree -- that is run-of-the-mill). These are almost a dozen articles from a variety of perspectives indicating his relevance to the organization that, to me, clearly meet the GNG threshold. Go Phightins! 03:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBASEBALL and doesn't otherwise pass WP:GNG. We don't need an article about every former draft pick. SportingFlyer talk 01:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Go Phightins! that this article passes GNG. Certainly, we should not have an article about every former draft pick, but first round picks tend to receive more coverage than lower round picks. Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with above. Article passes WP:GNG. Good inline citations.BabbaQ (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with all above. Meets WP:GNG, which overrides WP:NBASEBALL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for baseball players. The claims he meets GNG are based on a way too broad reading of the types of articles that add to GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The citations in the article are just routine coverage, not substantial coverage of the subject. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that is the case, notability is not just based on sources that happen to be in the article at the time. GoPhigtins provided additional non-routine sources. I don't see how an article like this can be considered "routine." Rlendog (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's what counts for substantial coverage, then literally tens of thousands of high school and college athletes should have pages here, since it's common for such athletes to be profiled a time or two in a local media outlet. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At this time, lacking other !votes, there is a no consensus so we can keep and revisit later. I can only see the notability of a minor league sports figure that got fired for doing pretty much nothing. Alright: A "first round pick" (that got some meadia coverage) that failed expectations but was retained for a long period and still failing to produce (improve substancially) and was fired. This is actually "exactly" providing an exception to "We don't need an article about every former draft pick" so we can have such articles. A minor league baseball player with the notability of being "one of" Phils' early-round draft failures over the last decade. It could use a subtitle "first round pick that went nowhere". Otr500 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks where he is mentioned. Spanneraol (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I fixed a couple of sources. It would be great to see more, but I think what we have just meets the threshold. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:32, 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! 06:40, 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 keep and move to Outline of Harry Potter. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harry Potter-related topics[edit]

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

Duplication of Category:Harry Potter. No need for a self-referencing list article when it is already available in cats. Appears to be an improper WP:Self-reference. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how do you think it "violates" WP:Self-reference, e.g. with a quote from the policy. Christian75 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Harry Potter template? Most of the entries are already there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, instructs that lists, categories, and templates can all serve different functions and may all be used for the same material. Lists can provide more context and organization that a category. I don't perceive any clear argument why that isn't the case here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the whole thing is an improper self-reference in the article space. There is a reason that this article is unique. This is literally the entire purpose of categories - to allow people to navigate through ALL the Wikipedia articles regarding a certain topic. @Arxiloxos:. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that WP:CLN explicitly says that arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.? Regards So Why 08:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i thought that cats were originally set up for, and are used mainly by, editors, not readers (plese slap me if i am wrong:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article is trying to be a list of categories. I'd say it would merge to the navbox too. I'm also working on Draft:List of Harry Potter media too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retarget to Wizarding World~~ which covers the franchise: books, films, video games, theme park attractions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC) updated 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Wizarding World covers the franchise the film started, it doesn't include the original novels. But it does cover more than the novels, so I think that's a good option to.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are a bit of a mess at the moment with content forks all over. Like why Wizarding World franchise has detailed plot summaries that are also in the Harry Potter (film series) article? But Wizarding World seems to want to cover the media franchise according to the hatnote. Same with the video game lists being on Harry Potter, Wizarding World, and List of Harry Potter video games. But somehow Wizarding World is GA status so it must be covering something that most editors think is quality. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Harry Potter, Harry Potter (film series) and Wizarding World could be re-evaluated and see what should have what, and how much detail too. I think the safest decision is to redirect this to the category.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the video games article looks like a recent creation (April 2018). It may have to be reviewed, but if it stays it will need content fork resolution as listed above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks like it has been repurposed so as to not imply a content fork problem, so I'll support rename to Outline of Harry Potter AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's completely fair for a franchise this big to have an outline-style of article to help readers find the specific piece of HP work they are looking for. Yes, this might duplicate a navbox purpose, but navboxes aren't readily searchable. Whether this is renamed, or merged to the Wizarding World, or whatever, that's not an issue, but this should be treated as an outline, which is perfectly valid in mainspace. --Masem (t) 18:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up WP:DIRECTORY, just by the off chance that something might come up, and I'm surprised that Wikipedia knew what i was looking for! There is a policy that says this is against Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I believe this falls under this rule.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this list a directory of material for conducting business as per what WP:DIRECTORY points to? Not really - it is the case that there are a lot of notable works within the Harry Potter series and thus listing them all within an outline-style article is far different from a directory of product listings. --Masem (t) 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, I think you're misinterpreting the rule. I don't think its there just for conducting business reasons. A lot of the principles of the rule makes sense for things outside of "conducting business purposes" too. This isn't a notable topic, its a directory for the notable topics, this is just a directory and simple listing without contextual information. And in my humble opinion, just being all related to Harry Potter isn't contextual information if it just wants to list the topics that have their own article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But this is just my humble opinion on the guidelines. please correct me if I'm interpreting them wrong.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Outline of Harry Potter" or "Outline of Harry Potter–related topics". This looks like an outline page under a different title, and outlines are not inappropriate self-references—even lists don't fall under the scope of MOS:SELFREF—and certainly don't violate WP:DIRECTORY. (Whether outline pages are necessary or not is a controversial matter but overturning current policy would require global consensus.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTLINE isn't a real guideline or an official policy based on. I made that mistake recently too when I referenced another page that looked like a guideline. I'm not saying lists fall under WP:DIRECTORY and WP:SELFREF. I'm only saying that this one falls under that problem. Can you explain why it doesn't fall under WP:DIRECTORY?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I want to stress I am currently working on a list of media which has more contextual content than the current version. once completed, it will make this list redundant.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting my argument. I'm saying that being a list is a sufficient condition for WP:DIRECTORY or WP:SELFREF to not apply. WP:SELFREF is about articles (e.g. "Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles..." or "Articles [...] shouldn't refer to Wikipedia..."), and does not mention lists (except as an example of an exception: "many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section"). As for WP:DIRECTORY, I should have read a bit more closely, but I still don't see how it applies as this is not a directory promoting a corporation or a program guide.
Additionally, information pages are "intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms". I don't believe I ever claimed it was a policy/guideline but it describes common practice; (most) reasons given for deletion here apply to all outline pages but it makes no sense to delete one out of hundreds of such pages (instead a broader RFC would be appropriate).
Your draft is not a reason to delete this page until it is actually in the article space. Even then, it seems rather like it would be better to merge the draft with this outline page (arguing redundancy with something that doesn't exist yet seems more like an argument for not creating that redundant thing). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, it doesn't exist yet. However, it has far more contextual content than the current list. Once it is created, the argument can't be made that it should be deleted because its a valid WP:CONTENTFORK. It would be a valid article, not a directory. I don't think WP:DIRECTORY is limited to just "promoting corporation or a program guide". It also falls under simple list without contextual content.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the guideline WP:CLN, specifically, WP:NOTDUPE. Lists, navboxes and categories all coexist on WP. Either keep or merge would be fine, whatever the consensus brings. --Mark viking (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Outline of Harry Potter", the page is akin to Outline of James Bond. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry Potter (disambiguation). I'm truly surprised that this isn't all there already - this looks exactly like a Dab page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused – what exactly does this look like a dab page for? I don't think anyone could possibly expect to be redirected to The Tales of Beedle the Bard and Magical Objects in Harry Potter (for example) by entering "Harry Potter" in the search bar. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Harry Potter (disambiguation) where I just merged this info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I've undone this edit. You can't just do a bold merge in the middle of a lengthy AfD discussion. This requires consensus. (Quick link to TimTempleton's version of the dab page.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there’s any policy that says we can’t edit and improve other articles when a related article is under AFD discussion. This discussion can still run its course, but as I showed, that dab page was missing quite a lot of information. The closer can read this thread and see my more elegant solution that was reverted. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was, in your words, a merge. AfD is about discussing merges (as well as delete/keep etc.) so it seems to be shortcutting discussion to just go ahead and merge the two pages (albeit while leaving the other intact). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A merge, yes, but not a redirect, which would impact the article under discussion. I'm not aware of any policy that says a different page can't be worked on and improved while a related article is under discussion. But thank you for posting the link to my dab edit above. It seems clear to me that the expanded version of the dab page is more useful than the current very thin page, regardless of the resolution of this particular AfD discussion. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of policy regarding merges during AFD discussion at WP:EDITATAFD, which amounts to getting consensus before attempting a merge. I have been bitten by this one before, too. No harm done. --Mark viking (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks for pointing that out. In this particular case I was improving the dab page while concurrently showing what the merge under discussion might look like. Since there was an objection, and it's policy-based, I'm fine with the revert. The good news is the record is there for anyone who wants to visualize my suggested solution, and for to others who might wish to improve the dab page down the road. I'll add a note to that dab page talk page to assist future editors. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more propriate list would be list of Harry Potter media than a list or outline of Harry Potter. I did some research on how outlines are being used, and its usually when there's no over-arching article that covers all the topics. It could be because Wikipedia has no real criteria or guidelines when it comes to outline and indices too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as outline. I find it very similar to the Bond one. wumbolo ^^^ 14:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a handy outline that has everything in one place.TH1980 (talk) 02:10, 21 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. Boy, this was a mess. Bulk nominations are rarely a good idea, as the ensuing muddled debate exemplifies. The general consensus of the discussion is that Viramontes meets the bar of the GNG, making the discussion about meeting NFOOTY moot. A Train^talk 09:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Viramontes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.

In anticipation of potential keep votes below, quoting the nutshell section of NSPORT (namely: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition) is not a suitable deletion reationale. The nutshell is merely a summary synthesis of various guidelines (which should be obvious from the vagueness of words such as "major"). The only relevant area of NSPORT for this discussion is NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela Carrandi and WP:MULTIAFD. Hmlarson (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more: WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hmlarson (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep These articles are unrelated enough that nominating as a WP:MULTIAFD is wholly inappropriate. Nominate them separately if you want. Smartyllama (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per [25], [26], and [27], the Liga MX Femininil has been professional since 2017. Therefore, these players pass WP:NFOOTY regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: they're about women in the same/team league, whose articles are near-identical. 'Procedural keep' does not apply here. Also where is the evidence that the league is fully-professional as required by WP:NFOOTBALL? Giant Snowman 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The articles clearly describe it as a "professional league." I fail to see the difference between that and a "fully professional league", a phrase I have never in my life heard outside of Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFOOTBALL's perspective, "professional" means it has some professional elements - "fully-professional" means that every club/player is professional. That's the key distinction. Giant Snowman 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the NFOOTY authors didn't write those articles. To most people in everyday English, a league that has "some professional elements" but is not "fully-professional" is semi-professional, not professional. The Wikipedia article on that topic confirms that. Smartyllama (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most people don't know what "professional" actually means, hence why we have "fully-professional" as a strict requirement. For example, I remember seeing Scott Foster described as "professional", except, of course, he is not (and that's precisely why he got so much media attention). Giant Snowman 13:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the NHL is not a fully professional hockey league then? (And don't tell me WP:NHOCKEY has a different standard - I know that, that's not what I'm asking.) And you're saying we shouldn't trust the numerous sources that describe the league as professional because they "don't know what [it] actually means"? Why? Because you say so and you know better than numerous reliable sources? That's not how WP:RS works. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I said was desribing Foster as "professional" was not correct - in the same way that describing the Liga MX Femininil as "professional" is not correct as far as Wikipedia's notability standards go. I've been editing soccer articles for over 10 years, please trust me on this. Giant Snowman 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all the sources are wrong and you're right because you know better than media that covers the league? I find that very hard to believe. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes :) Giant Snowman 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: - not wanting to re-ignite this, but in relation to the use/mis-use of "professional" - Wikipedia's article on Ladies European Tour states that it is "professional"; it is also described by such by third-parties (e.g. this, amongst others; yet it cannot be 'professional', given that many participants are having to take part-time jobs to survive. Do you now get where I'm coming from when I say that the word 'professional' is not fully understood? That is why, for soccer, we insist on "fully-professional". Giant Snowman 12:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of lower-tier professional athletes have part-time jobs on top of their full-time ones. Minor league baseball is commonly regarded as professional baseball (though its athletes are not inherently notable per WP:NBASEBALL) but its athletes often take other jobs in the offseason to make a living. And I seem to recall a discussion on that talk page reaching explicit consensus that MiLB is professional, not semi-professional or anything else. But this AfD is really not the appropriate place to have this discussion, WT:FOOTY is. I suggest we move it over there. Smartyllama (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do. Giant Snowman 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Liga MX Femenil. Smartyllama (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none come even close to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brenda Viramontes and Anette Vázquez, ~~unbundle the other nominations please~~ delete Zellyka Arce and Valeria Meza - It appears that Viramontes is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g., Publimetro article, El Informador article, Non-routine mention in Vanguardia article - led club in goals during the 2017 Apertura tournament). There is plenty of routine coverage online as well, but I think there is enough online coverage to satisfy GNG based on my limited Google Translate skills. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney: - why do the rest need to be unbundled? They remain non-notable, do they not? Re-nominating them serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 18:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to review online sources to see if any of the other articles meet the GNG. I don't think it's appropriate to bundle them in a single AfD (as GNG compliance for each article must be determined independently). Jogurney (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And none of them meet GNG, so what's the problem? Giant Snowman 20:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I checked for online coverage of Anette Vázquez, and it appears an article would satisfy the GNG (e.g., Publimetro article, ESPN MX article, and AS México article). I don't think Arce and Meza would satisfy the GNG based on a quick check of their online coverage, but I reserve the right to look further when I have more time. Jogurney (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my !vote to cover the other 3 articles - I'm not finding sufficient coverage for the Arce or Meza articles to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I detest multiple nominations unless there is clear connected reasoning to do so. Nominate seperately if there is deemed reasoning. I do see issues on more than one but not necessarily on all. Otr500 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: these are basic stub articles, all created by the same editor using the same template, about women who all play for the same soccer team (and all fail WP:NFOOTBALL). They are about as connected as you can get! Giant Snowman 11:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Most editors that are not involved in articles, and just weighing in on an AFD, unless really bored with nothing to do but research an AFD, would not know this so would have been a good reason to include this information in the nomination(s). There has been a slide for finding reasons to keep pseudo BLP's using speciality publications or other primary sources or just a head count over a !vote. The closer normally will not investigate the articles but weigh in on the rationale provided in these !votes, supposedly considering relevant policies and guidelines. I take the time to look at these, investigate to a minor extent, and !vote according to what I see as reliable sources. Trying to "slide 'em in" seems to be a popular thing because the below templates rational does not seem to matter. Consider instances of This page in a nutshell: Otr500 (talk)

WP:notability:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

Wikipedia:Notability (sports):

This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Wikipedia:Notability (people):

This page in a nutshell:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.
Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

All of these have the same thing in common in that sources determine notability as well as acceptable rationale for content yet somehow this tries to be wikilawyered. We then seperate reliable sources to exclude primary sources for notability and add depth if a BLP (or BLP related) is concerned. If a source is closely related to a subject (not independent of the subject) it cannot be used for notability. None of the above seem to matter when one or more editors, or a project, seem set on creating articles or making blue links out of all red links, that have been marked thus for article creation when the creation occurs, or speedy deletes would be more common. Expanding a parent article must not have the same prestige or possibly total article count so creating stubby stubs or pseudo BLPs seems preferencial to adding to an existing article to make it better. If a subject is not greatly sourced or even poorly sourced it might augment the parent article but it seems more fun (I guess) to argue stand-alone status.

If you close this as withdrawn and wish to nominate seperately you can ping me and I will give my honest opinion, according to policies and guidelines, as to notability on each or you can take your chances with the bundle. Otr500 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Either find sources showing notability or don't. Giant Snowman 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the smart aleck (I perceive = asswipe) comments. I was in favor of helping: Never mind do not ping me (ever) as I will return the asshole (my perception) favor by not reading your ping. Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to AGF (as your user page proudly boasts!) and CIVIL? Giant Snowman 15:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. AGF is a two-way street not a convenient threat. Follow the rules. Hmlarson (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all apart from the problematic bulk nom, players that aren't independently notable can be redirected to their team. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Are they notable pr not? Also redirecting non-notable sports people to their team page is frowned upon due to transfers etc. and th redirect becoming repeatedly out-of-date/inaccurate. Giant Snowman 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - for all the editors !voting delete based solely on NFOOTBALL, did you consider whether any of these articles could satisfy the GNG (see my points above)? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:NFOOTBALL completely falls flat for women's football. Fortunately for Viramontes, she pretty clearly passes WP:GNG with interviews with SI [28] and a full profile here [29] [30] which aren't WP:MILL. I haven't reviewed the others nominated, but recommend a procedural keep for them without prejudice for renomination. SportingFlyer talk 03:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a procedural keep of the others? Giant Snowman 08:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they should all be judged on their own merits - Viramontes is clearly notable, the others may be as well. Per the multi AfD, An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. SportingFlyer talk 20:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for Viramontes (Jogurney being entirely right in stating that NFOOTBALL's irrelevant if the subject can otherwise meet the GNG), neutral on the rest. Ravenswing 11:15, 25 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-deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gwiddle[edit]

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

This article is just an advertisement, a business listing for a web-hosting service. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article describing the venture's wares. No evidence found to suggest WP:NWEB / WP:GNG notability. I am also placing a CSD G11 notice on the article. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 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 keep. A Train^talk 08:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Indian Line of Control strike[edit]

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

Textbook definition of WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK. Entire article is copy-pasted out of India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present), which was created in 2016 on this exact "strike". If anything, the post-2016 skirmishes should have an article, not this 2016 conflict which has an existing article. The title ("Indian Line of Control strike") is also inherently WP:POV and in violation of consensus here which was in favour of "military confrontation" as per neutral sources.

This is a rare example of a Wikipedia article being spun (from its own article) into a new duplicate article, re-Christened under a rejected title per WP:POVFORK, and the original article being reduced to events after that event (ironically). And it's been done without WP:CONSENSUS. This should be redirected to its existing article, and if the post-2016 events need to have an article, that should be discussed, not the original event. Mar4d (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Over 84,000 bytes of article was created in according to WP:SPINOUT. It's a reasonable split and there was agreement between at least 4 editors in good standing per Talk:India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present)#Closure of status or change of title. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPINOUT doesn't say the main subject of an article should be entirely deleted from its own article, and pasted onto a new page. That's what a WP:POVFORK is. Mar4d (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, the article India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present) (formerly called India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)) had clearly gone beyond it's earlier coverage. The original article also covered the constant border skirmishes which occurred after the Indian claim of a "surgical strike". The end result was a massive article which covered a huge range of incidents from end of September 2016 to present. However, there is one incident among this which is WP:EVENT which had a lasting effect, had sufficient depth and duration of coverage, and importantly was covered by a diversity of international media and formed a major basis for two books. The content on this article was taken from the original article and is covered by a huge number of diverse, neutral sources over a sufficiently long duration of time. The content of this article was long standing in the original article and itself does not violate neutrality (the editors do not disagree on the CONTENT of the article). The nominator him/herself agrees that there should be a distinct article for the events following the 2016 event but that should not be this article but another article (this entire logic seems weird to me). Next, they point to a page move discussion (which happened in November 2016) that happened on a page which was not primarily about the "surgical strike" event but about numerous associated cross-border firing events between India and Pakistan. I strongly believe that the nominator wants is a page move on this article rather a page delete and this is not the right forum for this. Last, on the discussion of a POV name, the word "strike" is defined by Merriam Webster as as "to engage in battle, to make a military attack". To me the name simply implies an attack by Indian on LOC which is supported by numerous independent sources ([31],[32], [33]). This name does not imply that India crossed the LOC just that India initiated an attack. I fail to see how the article name violates POV (of course other editors might disagree) and I am happy to have that discussion but this a forum for deletion of an article not it's move. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely incorrect. When the article was created, it was on the "surgical strike" - and the page move discussion centered on that. The rest of your argument simply doesn't make sense because you're suggesting moving something from Article A to Article B, when A already has an article, and making Article A about an unrelated topic which Article A wasn't created for in the first place, and which happened way after Article A occured. Mar4d (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me how India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present) was only about the "surgical strike" at it's version on 1 May 2018? The article clearly had gone beyond it and encompassed every border firing event which took place between India and Pakistan. And it was coincidentally you who moved this page from 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation to 2016–present India–Pakistan military confrontation on 23 May 2017 indicating that you yourself believed that the article had gone beyond just the coverage of the strike itself ([34]). If you indeed believed that 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation was only about the "surgical strike" why did you move the page? Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. First, Mar4d, the information in the article India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present) was not entirely deleted as you say. As per talk page discussions, 5-6 short paragraphs were left as a summary of the event that is the main subject of the 2016 Indian Line of Control strike article, along with a link to the strike article. Second, again contrary to what you said, consensus was indeed achieved on the talk page of the skirmishes article among multiple editors to branch of the subject of the strike article into its own article since it was concluded it warranted to have its own. Finally, the main subject of the skirmishes article is not the strike, it went beyond that and included all of the clashes that have taken place over the last two years. We have stated that the strike article covers a sub-event of the skirmishes article. To put it simply, the strike was one notable battle within the overall conflict that are the skirmishes. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I suggest WP:SNOW (I read AfD instructions before jumping into these discussions dw =)) --VitalPower (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VitalPower (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable event that should have a page. The nom is going OTT with the usual "POV this, POV that" allegations. I will just list a selection of sources that cover the event reasonably:
1. M. Ilyas Khan (23 October 2016), "India's 'surgical strikes' in Kashmir: Truth or illusion?", BBC News, retrieved 23 October 2016
2. India and Pakistan: Reversing roles, The Economist, 8 October 2016.
3. Nitin A. Gokhale, The Inside Story of India's 2016 'Surgical Strikes', The Diplomat, 23 September 2017.
4. Ankit Panda, Lessons From India's 'Surgical Strikes', One Year Later, The Diplomat, 29 September 2017.

Safely meets WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is contentious enough. So we should wait for an admin to close it. --
Keep - Major geopolitical event with significant media coverage. Passes WP:EVENT in general and WP:EFFECT in particular. Razer(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator has failed to explain any justifiable reason for the deletion. Based on what the Nom has said it appears he has a problem with the current article title and is not happy with the title due to his POV, if so he should start a discussion for renaming and not an AfD. The title in itself is neutral and has been decided after lot of discussions and consensus on talk. The article has been split as per the policies of WP:EVENT after getting consensus by the Author. Article is subject of major event with international response from several countries. As of 2018 the article is notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Article is also the subject of a History Channel Documentary. The article has a significant exposure in reliable sources easily passes the WP:GNG to keep. I am sad to say this but the deletion nomination appears to be a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--DBig Xray 18:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to meet required policy and content guidelines.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge, have to agree with the nominator's rationale. It's a WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK. --Uncle Sargam (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject. Article title and contents are editing decisions. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Auntie Agni (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / merge to the original article, from where this WP:CFORK / WP:POVFORK was harvested. It also seems to be WP:COPYVIO because EkoGraf didn't say where they were copying content from, in the first 3 edits they made. --Auntie Agni (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]

Keep meets wp:gng. --Gian (talk) 06:48, 25 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 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. This seems like a pretty obvious WP:ATD-R ; if anyone disagrees just shout. A Train^talk 08:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rose-Hulman Human Powered Vehicle Team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an incredibly out-of-date ("in its fifth year" refers to 2010) article on a student group with no independent references. I found some local coverage ([35]) but not enough coverage for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure to be kept up to date is a clear indication of non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 26 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. A Train^talk 08:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Fleury, Kinshasa[edit]

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

no source found, cannot find place name on any online maps, seems to be a small building project rather than a gated community neighborhood. Sgnpkd (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The better searches that I linked above seem to show that this is a recognised quartier of Kinshasa. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing "worthy of notice" about a gated community, a building project, or an attack article on the "well off". Otr500 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Geoland ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:34, 24 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. A Train^talk 07:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Films on Rajputs[edit]

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

The PROD rationale supplied by Bishonen seems sound to me and I reproduce it here following the de-PROD:

per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The intersection of Bollywood films + main characters that belong to the "cluster of castes, kin bodies, and local groups" Rajput is trivial and random. Also, "based on" is an overly pretentious way to say that there are main Rajput characters in a film. What next, list of books with main characters that are Shudras? List of computer games based on Agrahari Sikhs? The trivial possibilities are endless.

I add to that comment that the de-PROD rationale says it all: this is just caste puffery nonsense and we need to get a grip on it before it explodes in all sorts of directions. Sitush (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would note that the de-PROD seems to make a somewhat dodgy claim of how Rajputs have respected females of their community etc. Female infanticide in India suggests otherwise. It is all a POV exercise. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My rationale is already quoted by Sitush above, but I also have to say: OMG the de-prod rationale as a reason for keeping a list is fantastically irrelevant. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per Sitush and Bishonen above. Also, the obvious fact that the "about rajputs" part is unsourced and unsourceable. (And the edit summary on this diff is the best delete rationale I've seen in a long while!--regentspark (comment) 15:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nominator.LISTCRUFT.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Arbitrary list. Per nominator. The borders of what qualifies to be a film on Rajput is unclear, as to me Rowdy Rathore seems like a valid inclusion in the current form of the article. Jupitus Smart 13:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. It is an unnecessary list, following this if we do a list for Sikh then, almost all punjabi movies will be added in that, which is useless to do so. NevaK^^talk 06:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsinghparmar (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. List is pointless and is designed to falsely flatter the ego of a sect in society. Cesdeva ^(talk) 08:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: close, please. I see that the creator and only contributor to the article, User:Mrsinghparmar, has !voted "Delete" above, so perhaps this can be closed. Bishonen | talk 08:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Snow delete per everyone. Just get this over with. Ajf773 (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete this article again, as there are no reliable/notable sources of information that verify that this journalist meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Janjua[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Autobio of this user. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Journalists are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they either pass WP:JOURNALIST or basic GNG. This one fails at both end. In the pervious AfD, it was argued that the subject won a award "2015 United Nations Correspondents Association" but it is not a significant or notable award (at-least by WP standards because the award has no WP entry). Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails GNG. I believe journalists wins some sort of awards due to their nature of work but its the notable awards which counts. --Saqib (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - getting a silver medal (second place, per the source itself) where the award has not been shown to be notable cannot be a claim to notability. GNG is also not met. --bonadea contributions talk 11:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [1] Less than two months between 2 AfDs. This one was opened less than a month after the previous was closed! A year is a good period to reconsider. [2] Nominator points at WP:COI but that by itself is not reason for deletion. gidonb (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a not valid argument to keep the BLP. can you establish WP:N? --Saqib (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This has been done last month. The article was discussed and kept. So mine is a procedural keep. Very valid. gidonb (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept because there was no consensus. --Saqib (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! There was no concensus to delete. Starting a discussion within a month from a failure to bring about a consensus to delete smells not good. It has the scent of forum shopping. Our policy is against it. For good reasons! gidonb (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is WP:FORUMSHOP. This nom is made by not same user (me). --Saqib (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same user would be more serious. That much is true. But even another user should take care not to raise an issue so often. gidonb (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets ping the admin (@Oshwah:) who closed the previous AfD and see what xe has to say on this. --Saqib (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion it's awkward to try to undermine someone's excellent summary last month (!!!), then ping him/her to comment on this. In a good case scenario s/he doesn't personally mind but it is still a bad idea to discuss articles this frequent. As I said, it has the appearance of forum shopping. Now if nominator had a particularly good reason to try to undermine the previous work a month later, explains why s/he must, why this is stronger than him/her, this is one thing. But s/he doesn't even spill as much as one word on the fact that this a super fast relisting. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 25 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's clearly no consensus to delete this article. Discussion of merge proposals can continue on the article talk page. A Train^talk 08:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg Historical Society[edit]

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

local organization, with only local references, almost all from its own site or its own publication. Most of the information is more appropriate for an organization web site than an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect after a bit of a trim and better referencing, etc., to Heidelberg#Culture and history or similar section. Not notable in its own right but is notable in the local community context of Heidelberg. A fifty year institution is significant and notable within its community and deserves appropriate documentation in Wikipedia, but it does not seem notable in its own right. I would expect it to be likely search term. Aoziwe (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC) *have amended above wikilink so it goes to Heidelberg, Victoria. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is by a very new WP:SPA, but I would not want us to be WP:BITEY I would like to encourage a member of a historical society to become a permanent editor of Wikipedia... Aoziwe (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me; also what Aoziwe said. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, nominator (who i have a lot of respect for, love ya DGG:)), states HHS is a "local organisation", not in itself a reason for deletion, even "only local references" may not necessarily be a problem depending on the refs - independent and not "run of mill" is paramount, unfortunately this article's references mostly arent (this may reflect the newness of the article creator). that said, it does seem to be the go to group for anything historically heidelberg ie. in the Heidelberg Leader (oh no, a local paper!:)) "Heidelberg History Society collates memorabilia to celebrate 80 years since the City of Heidelberg was gazetted", "Airlie Aged Care in Ivanhoe under threat from developer - Friends of Banyule and the Heidelberg Historical Society are also outraged and want the building preserved." a snip, "Caerleon Homestead in Eaglemont Demolished to Make Way For Multistorey Townhouses" another snip, but have been unable to find anything significant/indepth/independent that discusses the HHS itself, do agree with Aoziwe that the Heidelberg, Victoria article should definitely have words on HHS. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps draftify it awaiting better references? DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yep, agree. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for suggestions - all very helpful for this new contributor. The page was started at an event in Melbourne that aimed to increase the number of museums in Victoria that have their own page in Wikipedia. I obviously chose a less-than-easy candidate! I am working on improvements to the Heidelberg Hist Soc page, hoping that it may survive, and will add something asap to the Heidelberg page. There's a good lesson in all this for small local organisations - that they need to find ways to attract published 3rd-party attention; not just self-publish. I have just now added a sentence about the Society's activity in heritage advocacy - thanks to Coolabahapple for the links. Maddy8 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I do not know, but another option might be to repurpose it as an article on Old Heidelberg Court House. WE commonly have articles on museums and similar preserved buildings that are open to the public as tourist attractions. The activities as a histrocial society are probably NN (like many local historical societies). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just a tiny local organisation, Heidelberg is a significant part of the city of Melbourne. [36] is from a major metropolitan newspaper, and I do see several book mentions as well. So it looks like notability is provable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 25 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. A Train^talk 07:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avalara[edit]

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

advertorial article, references are routine ... fails notability guidelines Wolfson5 (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, yeah this was created shortly after Congress was considering passing a law in 2013 mandating that online companies comply with state and local taxes. Obvious paid editing job. There is still unsourced content from that time, in the relevant section, so it can be found by search engines. It is terrible that shit like this gets dumped into WP and lingers. Fortmit.Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thinly veiled advert. For example, second line says "Avalara helps businesses get tax compliance right." This is not balanced nor encyclopedic. The business tagline is "Tax Compliance done right". Also none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 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 keep. A Train^talk 07:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Lê[edit]

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

This poet doesn't seem to meet the criteria for WP:NAUTHOR. Wolfson5 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author in question was a Small Press Distribution Poetry Bestseller, won Second Place in the 2017 Elgin Book of the Year Awards. Poet has been a Minnetonka Review Editor’s Prize winner, a two-time Alpha Omega Alpha Pharos Poetry Competition winner, a William Carlos Williams Poetry Competition finalist, a Michael E. DeBakey Poetry Award finalist, a Pamet River Prize semifinalist, a four-time Pushcart Prize nominee, a Best of the Net nominee, and a Rhysling Award nominee. For a child of Vietnamese refugees who escaped the Vietnam war balancing both a professional career as medical doctor in a community where less than 20% of her people graduate college in the US, and a literary career that has won numerous distinctions seems to qualify under WP:NAUTHOR.LaoArtisans (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Le was considered a “groundbreaking Asian American poets” by NBC News, and her press page on her website includes over 38 entries including the Huffington Post, New Hampshire TV, Slate, Salon, the Los Angeles Review, Hyphen magazine, the Hong Kong magazine Cha, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, where she has had her work reviewed or her opinion or performance as a writer requested. This seems sufficiently noteworthy as far as Asian American poets go. Thaoworra (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wow, article created at 02:21, up for deletion at 03:49, a tad quick? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Lê's book of poetry, Six Rivers, has been reviewed by Hyphen - " Funny, ferocious, and lyrical, Le chronicles her Vietnamese heritage, family lore, sexual awakenings, and her gorey trials as a doctor, all divided by chapters named after the rivers in her life...", Star Tribune - "the world in Jenna Le's debut collection is strange.", Ocean Vuong in Poetry Magazine - "Another book I have been returning to is Jenna Le’s Six Rivers.", her other book, A History of the Cetacean American Diaspora, doesn't appear to have made such an impact. As for Lê receiving numerous Pushcart Prize nominations, is this significant?, from its website - "We welcome up to six nominations (print or online) from little magazine and small book press editors throughout the world. We also accept nominations from our staff of distinguished Contributing Editors." Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the article is rudimentary but the subject seems notable, based on press coverage linked from her own website as Coolabahapple says, such as [37] and [38]. The way her work builds on scientific theories, including her medical background, is especially interesting. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs a lot of work, but I searched, and there is enough here to pass WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a notable writer, passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:55, 25 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. A Train^talk 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staten Island Ninja[edit]

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

No evidence this is a notable burglar. Coverage is routine news blotter surrounding the breakins. StarM 01:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is a bit out of date, but a simple google search reveals that this burglar has recieved quite extraordinary news coverage. He pleaded guilty to breaking into 100 homes. Here are details of his sentencing from 2016: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. All these RS taken from the first page alone. The ninja burglar even inspired the cration of a dojo in his name [49] [50]. The article should therefore be kept, and probably also renamed to Robert Costanzo, his real name. Emass100 (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet decided on notability, but the article needs a substantial rewrite as it appears to be about getting the wrong guy. Impressive crime spree if we can clean up the facts. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of weather if was the same guy/right guy or not, I think part of why this atricle is notable is because of the myth of the "Staten Island Ninja" in this burrough. This story got a lot of press coverage together. Emass100 (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf it isn't the right guy, it's a major BLP violation. I'm not sure details of his sentencing make him notable. THat's pretty much what I meant when I said it's standard crime blotter coverage. Burglars are tried/convicted/sentenced as a matter of course, that doesn't make them notable. StarM 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per simple google search and results. Indeed, the article needs some rewriting though but I dont see that as a reason for deletion as of now.BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 21 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. A Train^talk 07:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devi Alkapuri[edit]

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

I've tried to find a mythological figure who is the daughter of Kubera and Bhadra, either under this name or variants, or under different names. I can't. Nomination withdrawn the instant someone shows this isn't WP:MADEUP Shirt58 (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Delete. It doesn't look like a hoax nor any more made-up than any other tale of any religion that one doesn't happen to believe in, but the sources are in no way reliable, and even if there were something, it looks rather too local for a full article. Iff there did happen to be RS shown to support, then redirect with or without selective merge might be appropriate (Meenakshi is the daughter of Kubera and Bhadra [51][52][53]). "Devi Alkapuri" could be epithetic (Devi of Alakapuri), or a local name as an aspect of another goddess, or...) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. I'm sorry - I looked everywhere. Google searched up to the 20th page, similar names, children and siblings of the mentioned other mythological people, books... absolutely nothing. I'm okay with having a page exist that's very likely made up, as it's unlikely that readers are going to search for it. However, I'm really not okay with having pages, especially ones that are often visited, mention and link to this topic. Therefore, I removed all the links pointing to this page, as I feel like this could be very misleading to users. If this is proven to not be WP:MADEUP, which I find unlikely, then we can add the links back, but right now I feel it's much more likely that this subject does not exist, and I think it's very important to not mislead readers.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 02:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be either WP:MADEUP or a figure of only local importance. I find it difficult to believe that an Indian religious figure could have any Aztec equivalent as stated, especially as that part implies that it was once known, but "its name had got erased due to the period of time.". The hand drawn illustration (by Samwel Debbarma from an ancient portrait of the Devi from the sculpture found in Pilak located in Tripura) doesn't inspire me either.--Auric talk 20:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to draft. ansh 666 17:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Ladies (film)[edit]

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

Film has yet to enter into production. Should only be created when the film has begun filming. Already had a draft created at Draft:First Ladies (film). Delete per WP:NFF. – BoogerD (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect to Draft:First Ladies (film) and move the infomation from this article to the Draft. Vistadan 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have redirect that links to the draftspace? I ask because I'm honestly not sure if that is a thing. – BoogerD (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keep Draft as place for development until it matches NFF criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is fine as a draft for now. The film hasnt started shooting yet... Also, you can not redirect to a draft - that is nonsense. TheMovieGuy

Userfy: Could this article be moved to User:Vistadan/sandbox/6? Vistadan 02:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: OK, well this is all a bit of a 'to do'. First, it looks like Vistadan has boldly moved their article to userspace, so this AfD can probably be procedurally closed – incidentally, I have also tagged the redirect currently at First Ladies (film) under WP:R2. Second, in terms of "precedence", BoogerD's draft at Draft:First Ladies (film) is slightly older than Vistadan's, but the difference is so slight that I suggest the versions be WP:HISTMERGED before being moved in Mainspace. But, aside from that, I'm glad to see this looks like it has been resolved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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