Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 May	27 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 no consensus. A merge (in either direction) with Urban bias may be advisable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan bias[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article consists of SYNTH associations of various mentions of the word "bias" that do not, as a group, describe or discuss any well-defined phenomenon. Much of the content is easily explained by population density and demographics, whereas "bias" is not demonstrated. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page creator here. What the nominator misunderstands as "SYNTH" is actually the development of a WP:CONCEPTDAB which explains the appearance of "diverse meanings" because the phrase is used in diverse ways. The section headers separate various meanings. -- Netoholic @ 02:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: I'd also like to raise an objection that the nominator appears to be WP:CANVASSing to talk pages of specific other recent AfDs (1, 2) which he likely believes will attract editors sympathetic to his nomination. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second the objection. The wording of the posts at two other AFD discussions is clearly biased. A argument can be made that the audiences are partisan. Because of this violation of CANVASS WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification we will have to post notices and tag editors who arrive her due to canvassing. This is unnecessary and disruptive.– Lionel^(talk) 11:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a legit CONCEPTDAB to me, and is preferable to developing 3+ disambiguated articles with available and later sources, especially since the concepts all really boil down to what's covered in the lead. They aren't three qualitiatively different things, they're three minor variants of the same thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've expressed elsewhere, either merge/redirect to Urban bias, or merge redirect that here. These seem to be different terms for the same concept. I haven't seen anything that treats them as distinct. GMG ^talk 03:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GreenMeansGo (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

While the two phrases superficially sound a lot alike, "urban bias" is a distinct phenomenon of its own. We could address this confusion with hatnotes. -- Netoholic @ 03:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan_bias#In_resource_allocation says "'urban bias' was a tendency of governments..." This would seem to suggest that Urban bias could be merged into that section. Am I missing something? Maybe someone should be bold? – Lionel^(talk) 11:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not well-read on the urban bias phenomenon, but its quite possible that Metropolitan bias#In resource allocation is more like an evolution of it and could be added to that article. The current section as worded would in essence stay as a summary pointing there. -- Netoholic @ 12:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but I'm not sure it's really run-of-the-mill canvassing if you're having a discussion prior to an AfD about whether there should be an AfD. GMG ^talk 10:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the situation a little more, Urban Bias seems to be the original formulation according to the World Bank, and was originated by Lipton in 1977, and led to it's own bona fide school of thought. The WB's own study on Metropolitan Bias mentions Urban Bias by name six separate times in their discussion, and conclude in their final paragraph: Wherever that pattern holds, any strategy for urban poverty reduction that places greater focus on, or allocates more resources to, metropolitan areas, suffers from a “metropolitan bias” analogous to the urban bias of old. In other words, same underlying concept, different name.

Similarly, the BBC can't avoid using the terms interchangeably: The audience research indicated that network news and current affairs output originating in England was sometimes perceived to have an “urban bias or outlook”. ... Some rural audiences across the UK feel the BBC has a metropolitan bias. Similarly for discussion of housing conditions in the US, metropolitan bias in PRC government policy, economic policy in 61 developing countries, public policy in India... maybe that's enough to illustrate the point.

So it's definitely "a thing" in the literature, whether or not that "thing" is an accurate description of the state of the universe. There seems to be some serious scholarly debate on that point (e.g., Journal of Economic Studies), but you know, there's also serious debate on whether systems theory is nearly a perfect theory of everything, or inane hogwash that meaningfully explains essentially nothing (I fall in the latter camp), but that doesn't change the fact that it is "a thing" in the literature. And when we look at urban bias and metropolitan bias, there doesn't seem to be serious scholarship that I'm seeing which treats them in depth as distinct, but rather either as synonymous and interchangeable terms, or at the very least as separate but analogous. GMG ^talk 12:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be coming upon the reasons I initially arranged this article as a WP:CONCEPTDAB with summaries and pointers to other articles. There is certainly a large enough corpus of work devoted to urban bias (world economic development meaning) to keep that as a separate and distinct article. It certainly would be inappropriate to merge urban/metropolitan bias (media meaning) into that economic topic. The only reasonable place that the media meaning could be merged to is media bias, but that article is already at 67k which puts it at "probably should be split" per WP:SIZESPLIT, so adding a new section probably isn't wise. I ping the talk pages of both. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to a concession that Metropolitan bias is not a well-defined topic. The article is just a collation of very insignificant citations that happen to use those two words more or less in proximity to one another. There's no subject without SYNTH OR and POV theorizing about whatever it is that happens in cities. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford's A Dictionary of Media and Communication seems to think the media usage is worthy of a definition. I really can't think of a better counter to the claim its not "well-defined" than an Oxford dictionary. -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's like creating an article about Dog leg and then have the article sections be about veterinary femur surgery, golf course layout, and the Swiss canine-meat sausage they serve at New Year's. The article has not defined or described its subject. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge as proposer. The article uses SYNTH and OR to promote a POV by conflating the ordinary disparities in the distribution of a wide range of activities and economic allocations -- normal stuff -- with "bias".

In a nutshell, from a US Census publication[1]:

In the 100 years of classification, the urban population has increased from 45 percent of the nation’s total in 1910 to nearly 81 percent in 2010. During this period, the structure of the urban landscape also has changed, from a close relationship to the boundaries of cities and towns, to increased growth of unincorporated suburbs adjacent to larger cities, to diffusion of urban- and suburban-style development across the landscape, particularly within metropolitan areas.

Now, there are many reasons for this. But the use of the term "bias", as if to suggest some unfair disadvantagement or denigration of the rural areas is basically SYNTH and OR and appears to be part of a narrative to deprecate the views and interests of the metropolitan mainstream, which includes the mainstream of media, education, culture, and commerce throughout most of the world SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Seems to be a spate of articles that share two similarities (Metropolitan bias, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, Liberal bias in academia (since moved)). They all contain the word bias, and they all document a conservative view that harmful liberal bastions exist. The word bias suggests prejudice, and the existence of bias in any of these areas is highly controversial. Until and unless these articles are renamed and repurposed to provide an NPOV, I think they should be removed or merged into some other articles. O3000 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To closer: I have twice now been reverted for employing the {{canvassed}} tag to express concern about potential WP:Canvassing at play with O3000's vote - once by O3000 himself, and again by SPECIFICO the nominator of this AFD. The template is commonly used to communicate concern to the eventual closer - who will judge the merits of that concern. It is a violation of WP:TPOC to edit or remove comments of other users. -- Netoholic @ 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not being POINTY, I'll not tag your !vote as CANVASSING. But, I strongly object to your baseless casting of aspersions. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Nonsense, to suggest there is canvassing going on is a pretty clear admission of bad faith. What there is in reality is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN that has been dug up and put under community scrutiny. I'm fully with O3000 and SPECIFICO here, you need to stop this Netoholic! Carl Fredrik^talk 07:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To closer: Signed comments discussing concerns about WP:CANVASSING have again been removed, this time by CFCF. This is disruptive and against WP:TPOC. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe that this concept is well defined and / or exists, see for example Google books preview [2] where the term appears in passing and is not discussed as a concept. This is clearly not sufficient for an article on a perceived bias. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to urban bias — These seem to be the same, and some of the sources to this article in fact user the other term. That said there are considerable amounts of WP:OR in the current article, and that should of course not be merged into the other article. Carl Fredrik^talk 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article to urban bias. As CFCF has stated, the articles appear to be the same. The true issue here seems to be what wording is used, so merging the two articles seems like the best idea here. EggRoll97 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was originally neutral. But after reviewing Netoholic's recent improvements I am now Keep. In addition, I have to admit, I wasn't familiar with WP:CONCEPTDAB. I suspect this may be the case with some of the editors who have !voted. This article is a textbook example of CONCEPTDAB. I do see the possibility of merging Urban bias into this article, and it is obvious that Metropolitan bias is the main article. Any merging should be decided by consensus at Talk pages of both articles. – Lionel^(talk) 05:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 3 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mother Court[edit]

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

Non-notable book; perhaps merge to the article about the author, James D. Zirin. This AfD is concurrent with one on the same author's other book, at WP:Articles for deletion/Supremely Partisan. The Zirin bio article very narrowly survived an AfD, with "no consensus" a few months ago. A regular merge proposal at Talk:James D. Zirin produced almost no input, aside from suggestions that:

One of the books might squeak by under WP:BOOKCRIT.
A countervailing view that there's really little salvageable here, since most of the content is excessive pull-quoting from reviews, not encyclopedic coverage.

I would add that the primary editor of these pages continues to be Zirin himself (see, e.g., rejected edit "request" here that is really more of a statement of how Zirin is going to continue writing about himself). I thought that this would all be taken as a warning sign by Zirin that he needed to abide by WP:COI, find independent reliable sources, and suggest neutral, improving edits (if anything) rather than continue to work directly on his own bio material here, but the situation's simply gotten worse. And is this after multiple CoI warnings at the user's talk page. The entire mess is just untoward and inappropriate, an abuse of WP as a self-promotion mechanism, and it needs to stop. Zirin + his work are perhaps marginally notable, gathered into one article, but we definitely do not need three articles, two of which don't really qualify as encyclopedia articles at all.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NB--Jaldous1 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book reviews and feature stories about this book in major media carry it past WP:NBOOK. Nomination appears to be WP:FORUMSHOP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Multiple book reviews unequivocally satisfy GNG and NBOOK. This is not even remotely doubtful and comments like "squeak by" are simply nonsense. Moreover, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, since the author has an article. Quoting reviews is not unencyclopedic either. James500 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I stated when the nom proposed merging to the author, this satisfies WP:BOOKCRIT criteria #1, having been reviewed by The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal.

The article is on a notable topic and has no identified WP:NPOV problem. It is not particularly good, but lists sources which could be used to improve it. Deleting (or merging) it is not the solution to disruptive conflict of interest editing (especially editing on another article - Jzirin's only activity on this article was to add the name of a reviewer, something no one has objected to). According to WP:COI, "If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts." The forum in which to request such a block would be WP:COIN or WP:ANI. This doesn't belong at AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in the NYT, NYRB, TLS, and Economist are pretty much as good as it gets for book reviews. In general, I recommend merging sources from articles like this to their parent/author article with a note re: summary style and otherwise very little fanfare. It doesn't matter whether this article is stripped to its studs with several reviews cited or instead listed as a single line with multiple refs in the author article, but based on the above reviews, we can certainly do encyclopedic justice to the book as a topic. czar 21:54, 2 June 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 Use WP:DELREV. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doria Ragland[edit]

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

This article is about a person who does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for inclusion. While her daughter is notable, notability is not transferable and Wikipedia is not the news. For those arguing keep, please read WP:N and make arguments based on policy and not opinion. The subject’s coverage is entirely related to her daughter and her daughter’s wedding and she herself is not the primary subject of any references unconnected with those topics. The first debate never established a reason to keep the article based in Wikipedia policy, I strongly encourage the closing admin to ignore what is bound to be a large number of popularity votes for keep that are not based in policy. From my perspective this is an obvious delete when looking at Wikipedia’s notability requirements. 4meter4 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted from the article this per, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doria_Ragland which was just closed 10 days ago by Drmies.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 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 redirect to Flag of Australia#Parliament house centenary flag. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament house centenary flag (Australia)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N. The subject of the article is one of the many (hundreds?) of Australian flags to have been flown over the Australian Parliament House. There isn't a great deal of interest in individual Australian flags, and this is no exception. Almost all of the few sources about this particular flag given in the article are minor stories in regional Queensland newspapers. The article creator is a SPA, who is likely to have an undisclosed conflict of interest with the obscure and now rather fringe Australian Flag Society - the article was also some extent a WP:COATRACK to present a positive account of this organisation minus their fundamentalist religious views, as is covered in the article on the organisation (I've removed this from this article). The article creator has been making similar edits to the article on the Society. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A group of Christians are surely free to get together and form a flag society. But their religious views (which they are hardly trying to hide) are a different thing to their custodianship of a national treasure. 03:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A group? I have seen no evidence of a group. Got a list of members? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This facebook page (www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society) of theirs seems pretty lively by the standards of Australian loyalist organisations and their offshoots with nigh on 3,800 subscribers. I must admit as a real flag buff I've enjoyed following their feed on social media. Always informative. Always controversial. Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's just a flag like any other Australian flag. Nothing special about it: same design, but big. Is there a point to redirecting it to Flag of Australia? It could rate a passing mention there. It's not even the flag in the picture accompanying the article. (Ah, Parliament House, Canberra: now there's a structure that makes a statement. Unfortunately that statement is, "THIS BUILDING WAS DESIGNED IN THE 1980s!!!!") --Shirt58 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some folks would be surprised how many people in Queensland know about this flag. Because according to my research not only have many of those articles in regional newspapers dating back to 2001 been widely syndicated. It's been on the national TV news and featured in the major Brisbane daily the Courier Mail. If it's been getting recent headlines such as "Iconic flag tours Warwick" <https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/iconic-flag-to-tour-warwick/3215346/> I would submit that it's time for its own wikipedia entry. This article was proposed and accepted. Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines are easy to generate in small regional newspapers by providing them with press releases. I have done it myself. Convince me that didn't happen. Nothing else you claim is sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what if they did? They probably even paid some firm to send out their press releases even. That's what keeps them one step ahead of their loyalist rivals mate. Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the citation for the Courier Mail article: Annelie Hailes, 'Huge flag for a big country', Courier Mail, 4 September 2009, p. 33. And the fact is that it's not easy to get quality publicity for Australian National Flag Day at all. Most of those Australian National Flag Association state branches can't seem to manage it from year to year. It's all been the Australian Flag Society recently. Because it's amazing how often these over sized things capture the public imagination. You'll be glad to know I've even seen discussion on the flag society facebook page that the custodians will now start asking famous Australians to add their signature to the headband of this specimen. I imagine that will help with future publicity indeed.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's not a citation.

2. Criticising "rival" bodies in not an acceptable strategy. In fact, it highlights that this is really more about your organisation, rather than this particular flag.

3. You are now saying that the important thing about this flag is its size, not its history.

4. Facebook content is generally fairly pointless for proving anything.

5. Claiming that people are being asked to do something (but haven't yet) proves nothing at all.

6. You final sentence demonstrates that your goal is more about publicising the flag (and therefore making money?) than the glory of the flag itself. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is spokespersons for other loyal societies don't get half anywhere near that sort of publicity for their flag day events. This flag has been getting headlines ever since Flag Day 2002 and it doesn't appear to be letting up with the most recent one being "Iconic flag to tour Warwick". If enough time goes by I've got a sneaking suspicion there's a certain inevitability about this article. Like it or not this is one of the most well known Australian flags of them all: you yourself even know about it now. According to my research it hasn't just been featured in the Courier Mail and the Queensland national news in 2009. It was on Win TV news in Canberra the first year it was paraded in 2002 and Prime TV regional news the following year. And after 16 years of this you really wonder why flag buffs like me are at that point where they are requesting a wikipedia article on the subject? One of the things I'm having trouble coming to grips with is that on the other hand I've seen wikipedia articles on here about rival Australian flag designs that 24 million Australians have never heard of before and they never will. Like what's that all about?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting the impression that this is really about some undocumented war you think you personally are involved in with other people trying to promote the flag. This is simply not the place. And I still suspect that material that has appeared in regional newspapers (perhaps even in city media) is based more on your press releases than on true investigative journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Courier Mail is the major Brisbane daily. And the Canberra Times is the major Canberra daily. Apart from that the other articles are from regional newspapers but were widely syndicated as a simple google search can reveal. Let me tell you what I did to find all those articles. I sent the flag society a message on facebook and asked for a list of all newspaper articles to do with their parliament house centenary flag. And then I went and looked up the newest ones on the internet and the older ones on microfilm at my nearest state library. So that's not original research as such anyway. And really if you haven't sighted all of this material yourself why are you even here contributing your expertise? Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is primarily about the quality of articles on Wikipedia. I too am interested in the Australian flag, and the extreme statements made at times by those who have opinions on its importance. These, at times, tend to end up in our articles, and shouldn't. I have a fair knowledge of vexillology, stronger than many but probably not as strong as yours. Seeing a new editor on the scene, especially one with an obvious POV built into their user name, also attracts my attention. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flag of Australia - I disagree that there is nothing special about this flag. It was the flag that flew over Parliament House 100 years to the day after ~~Federation~~ the first flag flew over the first parliament. Saying it's nothing special is like saying there is nothing special about the flag that Neil Armstrong planted on the moon. In 83 years, when a flag flies over parliament on the 200th anniversary, it may not be so special but for now it is. (Note that Flag of Australia#Centenary Flag existed well before the creator of this article started editing.) However, I don't see that it meets the notability requirements so the relevant content should be merged and the article subsequently redirected to maintain the page history. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about we do that for now then? Merge what can be merged with the Centenary flags section of the Flag of Australia article. Then if the tradition of the parliament house centenary flag continues we can revisit the need for a separate article another day. I'd have to say though I can tell you for a fact that already more folks know about this flag than some of these rival Australian flag designs you see on wikipedia that 24 million Australians have never ever heard of and never will either. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable at all about it, apart from the fact that a very strange "organisation" owns it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing something is not a national treasure doesn't make it so. How miserly of you mate. Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the topic here. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the mainstream LNP is actually going to implement some of these things this organisation is calling for though mate (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/cormann-backs-dutton-s-proposal-for-us-style-loyalty-pledge-in-schools). Some of their leaders have paid homage to this very special flag we are here talking about in fact. Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about a flag, not an organisation, or a loyalty pledge. It's no surprise that right wing politicians want to play the patriotism card. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. But I don't want to hear the flag society is a fringe organisation or doesn't exist anymore though. Elizabeth Kwan even mentioned them in her 2005 Flag and Nation and that's basically the seminal work on the Australian flag. You just don't seem happy for them. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - largely per Nick-D. Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If there's going to be some party poopers how about we just merge what can be merged with the Centenary flags section of the Flag of Australia article at this stage? Then if the tradition does continue let's just see where it's all at in five years time. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:36, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IndieGameStand[edit]

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

All sources appear to be based on press releases and lack the intellectual independence to be considered RS for the purposes of establishing notability. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would not meet notability requirements even if it was still a going concern. Deb (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely not notable before it folded and it fails WP:NWEB and GNG today. Sam Sailor 22:44, 2 June 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. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Kjer[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable living person that serves only to tarnish the subject's reputation. Should be deleted for the following reasons:
WP:BLPCRIME, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPF, WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCOI — Kjerish (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep. The article in its nominated state seems neutral, non-sensational, and properly sourced. I don't think the crime rises to the level of notability for all the reasons cited in the nomination, but that's irrelevant because it's not what the article is about. He passes WP:PROF#C1 for highly cited publications and #C5 for (albeit temporarily) holding an endowed chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be clear, User:Kjerish is Karl Kjer, the person who the article is about. Following WP:BIOSELF, he should realistically not be editing the article at all, nor nominating it for an RfD after he attempted several days ago to simply delete the page himself. He has several options in terms of requesting oversight to ensure objectivity. The claim he has included in his RfD, that the article exists solely to tarnish his reputation, is clearly false, given that article was created by Dr. Kjer himself - no one creates a page solely to harm their own reputation. I will also point out that WP:BLPCRIME, which Dr. Kjer has invoked in this RfD, does not apply, as he was tried, convicted, and sentenced, whereas BLPCRIME is intended to protect the reputation of those who have only been accused but not convicted. Likewise, he has also invoked WP:BLPNAME, which also does not apply, as the trial and conviction were fully public; this is not privy information suddenly being made public via WP, which is what that policy is intended to prevent. He has also invoked WP:AVOIDVICTIM, which is also entirely inappropriate, as he is most definitively not the victim in this case. Again, the bottom line is that if he is notable enough to have a WP article (which he clearly felt was the case when he created the article originally, and no one else has disputed), then any and all notable public information about him is fair game to include in the article. WP's underlying policy is objectivity, and this is at risk if Dr. Kjer is claiming that only he is allowed to decide what appears in the article about himself. Dyanega (talk)

@Dyanega: While I am a blood relative of the subject, I am not him. He does not advise me either, all of my edits are entirely my own. Of what bias I have, I also feel that this article may have some adverse affect my own reputation, which is grounds for WP:LIBEL. Both of the editors who have responded so far work at the same university as the subject, so I'm not sure they are impartial either. As for the basis of your argument, I agree that the content is open to the public. However, 1. as the subject has been fired and has discontinued all research, the merits of his original notability are dubious 2. the subject is not notable for any other reason than the crime, and 2b the crime does not have a sufficient scale of interest to the general public. As for the subject's own victims, I'm not sure they would like constant and public reminders of what have happened to them either. – Kjerish (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjerish: Not to prolong this, then: if we accept your claim of being a blood relative of the subject, that is still a considerable conflict of interest, and you should not be creating or editing or deleting articles about your own blood relatives. As for myself, you'll have to accept my word that I am impartial; I had never heard of Karl Kjer until recently, and never crossed paths with him, either in person or via communications - UC Riverside and UC Davis are in fact different universities, and I know a grand total of 5 people at Davis, which I could say about virtually any other university in North America. As a semi-aside, your claim that victims of sexual harassment probably don't want publicity is strongly contradicted, e.g., by the entirety of the "Me Too" movement, as it focuses quite explicitly on public exposure of the perpetrators. Neither stance (allowing offenders to conceal their offenses versus actively exposing them) is particularly objective, and therefore your comment is a bit of a red herring. Dyanega (talk)

@Dyanega: I don't disagree, I am eager to see how that movement shapes society. At the time I created the article, I figured perhaps the subject was 1-in-10,000 for the reasons listed above, and it appears others do too. Just wanted to be clear about not being a sock puppet. As for this dispute, I have made my argument and have respect for consensus. – Kjerish (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability does not change with negative coverage. Deletion is not an alternative to hide conviction information. Shyamal (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as holder (however briefly) of an endowed chair, the subject clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC, regardless of the criminal conviction factoid. And notability doesn't cease just because the subject doesn't hold the chair anymore. The COI editor's concern about WP:LIBEL seems ridiculous. Historical facts are not defamatory. If there are reliability concerns with the source, they should be taken up on WP:RSN rather than edit-warring in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be deleted, just a nonsense topic and non-notable. I would like to go for Deletion of it under following reasons: WP:G1, WP:G4, WP:G7, WP:G7, WP:G11, WP:A7, WP:A11, WP:BLPTALK, WP:BLPEDIT, Blueparticle (talk) — Blueparticle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
And all of those deletion reasons are not applicable here. In this discussion we are concerned with notability, specifically WP:NACADEMIC, which the subject passes. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly passes WP:PROF by having once held a named faculty chair. I can not help but to feel a bit of schadenfreude when an individual writes a COI biography and finds that they can not control the content.
That said I think we need a source which directly ties the conviction to his resignation before it may be included in the article. The resignation letter is a primary source and the article noting his conviction does not refer to his faculty position. Without a direct linkage I think BLP requires we not include a misdemeanor conviction with no documented link to his notability. Jbh ^Talk 17:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But only in accordance with WP:NPF, which would most efficiently mean removal of factoid and locking said page from future vandalism, which as the history indicates, is bound to occur again. Under WP:NPF, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." The subject is notable as indicated by others as they pass WP:PROF and WP:NACADEMIC, but that is all they are notable for. If we adhere to WP:NPF "include only material relevant to the person's notability" then the disparaging factoid is irrelevant to their notability. I am confused how one could link said factoid, even if it did mention his resignation to the subject's reason for -low-profile- notability in the first place. This page is about the subject's professional life, which is notable. It is not about the subject's personal life. If it were, then by the same logic we should write an entire biography about them including when he was born, the elementary school he went to, what he studied, important childhood life-changing events, his fear of spiders, why he chose what he studied in school, whom he married and when, his other interests and hobbies, his favorite ice cream, and an unlimited amount of other such details, but it doesn't because those arn't related to his notability. Just as about no other page discusses an individual's personal life, this one should stick to what he is notable for. That's why WP:NPF exists. Additionally the secondary source is not credible. It is a local newspaper which says the subject "allegedly" did such and such and therefore contradicts itself - participants in this debate are encouraged to read it for themselves.NHreigh (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — NHreigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@NHreigh: WP:BLPCRIME seems to answer this pretty succinctly i.e, "unless a conviction has been secured", which it has. That aside, what level of criminal background rises to the level of being worthy of inclusion?? The source is absolutely credible; it is New Jersey's largest electronic periodical. He was convicted and sentenced. There is no "allegedly" save for the reporter's own sloppy wording.. one could link to the NJ criminal court case database however it requires CAPTCHA and a search. 2600:1001:B006:D8FD:1D6B:7D3D:AFD8:1FCC (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1001:B006:D8FD:1D6B:7D3D:AFD8:1FCC: User:Jbhunley pointed out, "That said I think we need a source which directly ties the conviction to his resignation before it may be included in the article."

The disparaging information is mutually exclusive from the subject's reason for notability.

The act of resignation is voluntary. The reasons for resignation are included in the resignation letter. The only source that could tie the conviction to the resignation would be the subject, Dr. Kjer himself, due to the literal nature of what a resignation is. Any other attempts at creating said linkage would be speculatory and actually fall under the category of a conspiracy theory.

What level of criminal background rises to the level of being worthy of inclusion? A level notable enough on its own to substantiate creating a Wikipedia article about the subject (I do not believe a misdeamonor qualifies) or is related to the subject's reason for notability, which it is not, unless the subject has stated it is.

2600:1001:B006:D8FD:1D6B:7D3D:AFD8:1FCC, You firstly made a statement about WP:NPF which was incorrect. Not only was it incorrect, but it was purposefully incorrect in a way that confuses others such as to spark more debate. This is a common tactic used by journalists. You have, however, edited what you said to now throw out a straw man argument, "WP:BLPCRIME seems to answer this pretty succinctly i.e, "unless a conviction has been secured", which it has.", which is irrelevant. Should we make Wikipedia pages for everyone whom has been convicted of a DUI, or any other type of misdemeanor? No. What if they already have a page? Not unless the DUI is directly related to said person's reason for notability. Throwing out a straw man is another tactic journalists use just as asking open ended questions is.

Judging by this, stating that a news outlet has "absolute" credibility when news tends to have a well known negativity bias, familiarity at looking through certain databases, and having an IPV6 address, one could speculate that you are part of the media, if not THE source media which seeks to retain a link to their website from Wikipedia for search engine optimization reasons or just spark more debate. Thus, you have a COI. However, this is all speculation on my part. In fact, one could say it's a conspiracy theory...just as linking the factoid to the subject's reason for notability is.

"Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself." WP:BLPCOI

If the source is participating in the discussion and thus has a COI due to it benefitting from not only perpetuating the discussion, but retaining the backlink if it were to stay, then I strongly believe the oversight team should immediately get involved.NHreigh (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — NHreigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@NHreigh: Your conspiracy theories are getting the better of you by far. I have never been affiliated with any media outlet. 1. It was not a misdemeanor, it was an indictable offense: 2C:14-9B(1) Invasion of Privacy - Recording Sex Act Without Consent, 3rd degree, per the county court website. This isn't hard to look up. 2. If you don't think a notable University professor recording young girls in his shower is in itself notable enough to warrant wikification, that's fine. We can differ there. 3. I could care less which source is referenced.. as I said before, use the Court instead of the NJ.com article. You can't get more legitimate than that.

2600:1001:B006:D8FD:A26F:2E6C:15EA:5ED7 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons in my reply to NHreigh above and in concurrence with Shyamal above. 2600:1001:B006:D8FD:1D6B:7D3D:AFD8:1FCC (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Like, Above Author is just here to favor NJ link than New Jersey, If you peoples are promoting news. Search there will be more great source for it why only these two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4056:208A:4D66:B888:7CF7:D5CF:4FD2 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — 2409:4056:208A:4D66:B888:7CF7:D5CF:4FD2 (talk) has made no other edits outside this topic.[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibiana Boerio[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Nothing in this person's life meets a notability guideline and sourcing is sparse. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passed WP:GNG before she ever ran for office. Interim president of Seton Hill University[3], nominated to be director of the United States Mint[4], managing directory of Jaguar Cars[5]. Pburka (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all I found, too. Far short of GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Each of those is significant coverage in reliable sources. Those alone are enough for GNG, but there's also quite a bit more on Highbeam. She was covered pretty extensively in local British newspapers when she managed Jaguar. Google doesn't have much coverage there. (Personally, I wouldn't use PROD if I'd found even one these sources. PROD should be used only for non-controversial deletions.) Pburka (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    e.g. "Bibiana heads back for Big Cat territory", Coventry Evening Telegraph, "Bibie in Jag hot seat", Liverpool Echo, "New face in driving seat for Jaguar: Car maker's first woman MD steps down", Birmingham Mail, "We Want Customers to Think 'Gorgeous' about Jaguars: Company Chairman Speaks on the Luxury Car Maker's New Brands and Ad Campaign Hopes", Coventry Evening Telegraph Pburka (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, there seems to enough coverage of the subject to pass GNG. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not enough coverage. That third source is about Jaguar, not Boerio. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That particular entry isn't useful but other coverage such as Post Gazette and TribLive does cover her substantially. Our entry can easily be expanded. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they do. TribLive has a little coverage, but much of it seems to be about the election rather than Boerio. Post Gazette has far fewer mentions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect she doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and no harm in redirecting to the election page. SportingFlyer talk 02:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- She does not pass WP:NPOL nor is she notable for her position as president of Seton Hill University. WP:NACADEMIC specifies that it only applies to heads of major academic institutions, Seton Hill is not major.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the significant coverage in reliable sources from her time leading Jaguar? Pburka (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few more citations to the article. This candidate has received more coverage than typical campaign announcements. She has an executive profile on Bloomberg from her previous work.[6] She received significant coverage about her candidacy announcement, then received more significant coverage after winning the Democratic primary. She was recently profiled by the New York Times.[7] Considering she just won the nomination a week or two ago and has already received this much significant coverage, I don't see any reason to delete this article. It seems the coverage will almost certainly continue to intensify as we approach the election, and the article already passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am seeing enough reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG. --RAN (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep University president and soon to be congressperson = GNG pass. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a couple of references, including a long profile in London's Observer. Among the additions, I note that she was the first woman to serve on Jaguar's board of directors and was a C-level executive there. I'm not sure there is an NPEOPLE subheading for business executives, but I think she seems encyclopedic. The article itself seems to me to satisfy WP:CCPOL. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Neutral point of view and verifiable; received significant coverage after winning primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerikat (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing of per-politician career carries her past WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per E.M.Gregory and other above keep arguments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG pass. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 2 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Information and Communication Technology Awards[edit]

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

While this award is presented by a federal ministry, but this does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Awards are not given an automatic free pass, just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at GNG at minimum. Saqib (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a National award given by Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology, Government of Bangladesh. And one of major source added in the article from Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS). BSS is national news agency by government. NC Hasive • talk • 13:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. You need to establish the WP:N by providing significant coverage in independent RS. Since BSS is a government run agency, I don't think it is independent of the subject. Also because the award does not have a significant history, I don't think it is considered to be authoritative in their subject area. --Saqib (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- National award that has received coverage from almost all national news organization in Bangladesh. Coverage is enough to meet notability guidelines. I dont see how the coverage is trivial.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where is that coverage? I can't see it. --Saqib (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you go through the sources cited and explain how they are not significant. From where I stand, they do appear notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Bangladesh, here we have Bangla dailies and news coverage more than English! Anyways, you may find some coverage here --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 14:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep national award. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a glorified employee award, and there's only been one ceremony and if it awards a few famous people, of course it's going to get national coverage. The question is though, will it have the same coverage next year? It needs to establish long and lasting WP:N to remain here. Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is not a glorified employees award. It's a newly created national award. I dont know if it will receive similar coverage this year, but I am going guess it will. It does not need to establish lasting notability, it needs to demonstrate it is notable now and has received significant coverage. Notability is not temporary.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all the reason given for the proposal is, lack of coverage! The reference section of the article and the link I provided up shows it has enough coverage to prove it's notability! Therefore claiming the only government run news agency of a country not independent is not a logical claim I think! However WP:NOTTEMPORARY says, notability is not temporary and it also says from time to time a reassessment may be necessary. So until then, I find this one notable! --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 14:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huge media coverage in Bangladesh, Absolutely notable award. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 03:53, 1 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hi Tenang[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. GNG coverage is not "significant". Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no international or pro caps.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - update statistic playing on Liga 1 based on soccerway, and other supporting coverage on the news. The page has been significantly improved --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Liga 1 matches per Soccerway... Giant Snowman 13:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated clearly LI1 (Liga 1) on the stats on [8] Fathul —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is shown as having zero appearances. 12 times on the bench, as an unused substitute, does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about prove that he played on IPL (1st tier indonesian league in 2012, they change the name numerously) stated in [9]? If it is not also satisfying, then okay just delete the page. I just share my knowledge on my country league, which sometimes is not updated on soccerway --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need substantive coverage, not some odd stat page, to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played 20 matches in the top flight of Indonesia in 2012 for Arema, which I believe pre-dates Soccerway and should satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Happy to revise my vote if the 2012-2013 season wasn't fully professional. SportingFlyer talk 07:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer It wasn't fully professional from what I can tell. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia itself it states that it is fully professional [10]. It is not based on what someone tells --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He played half of 2011-2012 season (link of wiki page above) and 2013 season [11]. In soccerway it wasnt stated (maybe like stated above that it wasnt tracked). But in page, there are several references based on news that he played on games during those seasons --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played in the top-tier fully professional league, which satisfies WP:NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Liga 1 (Indonesia) and its predecessor are considered fully professional leagues, so subject passes WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:34, 1 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrizal Dillah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Soccerway shows he has previously played in the FPL-listed Liga 1. R96Skinner (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in Indonesia Liga 1 which is a FPL for both Gresik United and Semen Padang so passes WP:NFOOTY. NZFC^(talk) 22:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - scrapes through WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL per above. Smartyllama (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NFOOTBALL, the guideline cited as a reason for deletion actually provides the rationale for keeping the article. Nominators should read both the relevant guideline, the article, and search for sources before nominating an article for deletion.Jacona (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played at the top level of Indonesian football, abite briefly, so passes WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:41, 1 June 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. Meets the technical definition of WP:NFOOTY, as "played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute." There is an WP:IAR argument to be made here that one appearance is just silly, but the numbers (3 keep / 5 delete) are not overwhelming enough to throw out the guideline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmanuddin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no pro or international caps, fails WP:NFOOTBALL.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on soccerway, he played in a match in Liga 1. Based on WP:NFOOTBALL: "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable". It is a competitive game, does not need to 100 games -- fathul 12:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Liga 1 matches per Soccerway... Giant Snowman 13:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time to stop abusing absurdly low inclusion standards. One game does not notaiblity make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the game in question above he was on the substitutes bench for, and I don't see him playing in Paraguay either. SportingFlyer talk 07:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played a game in what was then the top flight football in the country, the Indonesia Super League with Semen Padang F.C. so irregardless what people say, yes the article is not the best but subject still meets WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro He never played in the game and thus fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in the Indonesian Super League before Liga I was a thing per above. As such, meets NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 11:55, 2 June 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. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benistor[edit]

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

No one knows this device. It is basically a product and also a company itself. No coverage, fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:38, 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) 10:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Benistor"+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXheHF-5LbAhXG7VMKHXyMD8UQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q="Benistor"%20-wikipedia&f=false this book has substantial coverage. There is also another book from an Indian publisher (Penram) covrring it substantially. The company name is Bensys. It would be good to find additional coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The inventor has been granted a fee patents but I can't find any independent coverage of him. I'm leaning delete as nothing seems to have come of his concepts so far. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT & significant RS coverage not found. Mostly unsourced WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 27 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 under WP:CSD#G7G. ℯ xplicit 04:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utah State Route 7 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page only disambiguates 2 articles (with one being the primary topic) and is not required; a hatnote at the primary topic (as well as on the other article) addresses the disambiguation issue better than a separate disambiguation page (WP:2DABS). An Errant Knight (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely unnecessary. MarginalCost (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G7—as the author only only contributor of substantive content nominated it for deletion here. Imzadi 1979 → 03:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm ignoring all rules and closing this. The article had sufficient references since its creation. I already left you a note about spurious AfDs on new articles. Natureium (talk)

Kate Raworth[edit]

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

Need more specific authentic reference links SB Shuvo 16:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy keep - not a reason for AfD immediately after creation. Natureium (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - not a deletion claim addressable at AfD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:23, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Hunt[edit]

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

The article-subject has requested deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. She is often quoted, mentioned, or included in roundups and blurbs, but is not the subject of significant, in-depth coverage. COI disclosure: I am affiliated with her employer and have been asked to start a deletion discussion on her behalf. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That only applies to "relatively unknown, non-public figures". I don't think she qualifies due to the in-depth sources about her. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should stay. She does not seem to qualify to deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as she is not "relatively unknown". Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above, she is subject to in-depth coverage and is not relatively unknown. Million_Moments (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well-sourced article on a public figure. PamD 09:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with above editors about indepth coverage and 'good' sources meeting WP:BASIC, also, doesn't having a DBE usually qualify for an article? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete We actually lack the indepth coverage that would consistute a true pass of the GNG. Even if we didnt, nothing about Hunt causes her to be so notable that we should have an article on her against her own wish not to have such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are enough to establish significant notability. Smartyllama (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources pass GNG. If this article is deleted then other notables such as Nancy Griffeth should be deleted as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:01, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Builder's tea[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition, which already exists on Wiktionary (wikt:builders' tea). Previous discussion about the status of this article on the talk page centres on notability (the phrase is definitely notable), but it isn't a subject that requires an encyclopedia entry. There is little article content beyond the definition, and a comment that builders find tea breaks "soothing and stimulating". User:GKFX^talk 15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cuisine based items are generally notable for the Encyclopedia, especially ones such as this which has a lot of sourced references. Saying "it isn't a subject that requires an encyclopedia entry." is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is "little article content beyond the definition", as stubs (which this is far more than) are valid, as are definitions of the subject (the whole point of the encyclopedia, no?) and of course, even if you do believe that the page is lacking material, that still isn't a reason to delete don't delete pages because the content is lacking, but because subjects aren't notable, and this subject appears to be notable. Egaoblai (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wonder how much there is to say about builder's tea that can't be said at tea. After all, the phrase really does just mean strong black tea. So I'm concerned that there isn't going to be any more article content to write. The presence of so many references establishes notability, but as stated in the nomination that's not what I'm disputing. User:GKFX^talk 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a topic that requires deletion as it is notable and there are obvious alternatives which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. Consider also the numerous other varieties of tea and coffee which have their own pages : Flat white; Earl Grey; Ipoh white coffee; butter tea; and many more. Andrew D. (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs an Origin or History section like those mentioned above have. Looking at ngrams and trends seems to indicate it is a new term. Although, maybe it comes from The Bonnet Builder's Tea Party (just joking).

Keep. It's notable and deserves its own entry as per comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.scaringi (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur with Egaoblai. Finnegas (talk) 16:16, 27 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 under WP:CSD#G7G. ℯ xplicit 04:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utah State Route 8 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page only disambiguates 2 articles (with one being the primary topic) and is not required; a hatnote at the primary topic (as well as on the other article) addresses the disambiguation issue better than a separate disambiguation page (WP:2DABS). An Errant Knight (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely unnecessary. MarginalCost (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G7—as the author only only contributor of substantive content nominated it for deletion here. Imzadi 1979 → 03:50, 28 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 admin Bbb23. (Page created by a Sock G5) (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Kallaste[edit]

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

no sense of gng met. yes played in national team but nfooty does not exclude gng. Quek157 (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He passes NFOOTY so? --IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Disclaimer: I am the author of the subjects article. --IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, when articles passes WP:NFOOTY, we can think that it passes WP:GNG. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there is one citation on the page, it clearly shows the player played for the national team which qualifies WP:NFOOTBALL criteria. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY as per This and there is a article in German Wiki here which is better and this article can be expanded.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is listed in a number of websites on football as having played for the national side in international matches, [12][13][14], and per WP:NFOOTY, the notability of those who have played for a national team is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria (therefore yes, it is assumed that he would satisfy GNG). If it is difficult to find online sources, it would be due more to the time he played in (1920s), and the language (Estonian) rather than an actual absence of sources. Hzh (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can we have some sort of sources that are not stated , some coverage. perm stub may be . Quek157 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian sports biography - [15]. Hzh (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Rudolf Kallaste in German Wiki.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on my understanding, FOOTY is the only subject based notablity guideline that need to meet GNG also. Wikipedia is never a R/S. The others are just saying that it might have significant coverage based on national team, that's a hypothesis. Anyway, his caps are way too low and goals are also, hence, I don't think there is any coverage. Hey, you don't cover one low cap player unnecessary and we have much more qualified players who got rejected previously at AFC. In addition, I know that there is a German Wikipedia source, but there are only external links back to what is being presented, which are mere X played in national team games. And are those games "A" international by defition, they may be "B" internationals or whatsoever, the pages you all cited still doesn't meet the mark. That German wiki page is much more complete, with Bio and anything, why not just keep to it than a permanent stub here? In addition, to address the issue of date of sources, I know many sources are not online, but shall we INDISCRIMATELY put up articles based on a "possible" source out there, than many BLP will be written from decades ago using such sources. That's my worry if a dangerous preceedence is set here. If there are at least some sources we can then use ANYBIO, but this does not even cut it. Do note that the creator of the article has many articles now under PROD. Just mine is challenged so it is now here. I also think so "Generally, when articles passes WP:NFOOTY, we can think that it passes WP:GNG" but if that is, we will need to accept all those articles we rejected by Das osmnezz which will be the implications of this AFD as many rejects are based on it doesn't met. I just want to make this clear. 10 (0) A 10 capped player (outfield) without any goals isn't gonna get much coverage, rather, negative coverage is likely and the stint is short (3 years). The player just played in 4 games as Baltic Cup, rest are friendlies, which means at most 4 "A" matches, and only 2 are wins, will a non scoring player in a losing team get coverage? No assists either. Guys, this cannot make it into GNG. The online sources presented above all repeat the same stastics (not coverage) but should there be any sources in newspaper, it will be "XXX fails to score", "XXX removed from roster", shall we turn this into attack page? or a total negative POV fork page? And yes, the German wiki is totally uncited and unsourced, translation will not do any good, the sources are the same we have now --Quek157 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I SNOW close this AfD, it is wasting time. He passes NFOOTY so no point in having this discussion. --IAWI (talk) 16:08, 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 keep. Snow keep, nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Ordia[edit]

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

Fails Wp GNG. IAWI (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a senator in a national parliament, the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gene93k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senegambianamestudy (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep sock noiminator. But seriously GNG is met via POLITICIAN irregardless of nominator identity, this is keep Quek157 (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs improvement, but is clearly notable. Nominator has been blocked as a sock. Brad v 20:11, 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 speedy keep. Non Admin Closure NACR #4, Proceedural Closure. SKCRIT# 1 and 3. Clearly obviously fails GNG isn;t going to work. With 7 sources somemore in the page. This is clear abuse of process and disruption. Hindu Times / Times of India / clearly covered the subject in depth and they are reliable, independent sources. I don't see why it "obviously" doesn't meet GNG, WP:ANYBIO clearly met. (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akkai Padmashali[edit]

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

Obviously fails WP GNG. IAWI (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Sorry you can't just give "obviously fails" as a reason for deletion. Requesting procedural keep on this. Egaoblai (talk) 15:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Payne (actor)[edit]

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

Distinct lack of notability - this eems to fail all applicable topic guidelines. The one item that often can jank this out, the obituary, is nothing more than a funeral notice; I can't find any better coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the roles are totally not up to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once had a tiny role in notable movie. No other evidence for notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:19, 2 June 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 Witchcraft (film series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft XVI: Hollywood Coven[edit]

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

Other than simple blurb listings in movie guides, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:FILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This one, I think, is better served as a redirect to Witchcraft (film series). Obviously, a plausible search term covered at the series article, so unsuited for actual deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Lindsey[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NBASE Fbdave (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Has he played in a major league baseball game? That seems to be the crux here, but I was unable to confirm this as I don't understand what it means for him to be 'drafted' by a major league team, and couldn't find confirmation of him having played in the major league. Ross-c (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No he hasnt.. he was drafted but only played for the minor league affiliates. Spanneraol (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lindsey has never played a MLB. He fails WP:NBASE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Los Angeles Angels first-round draft picks. Spanneraol (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:NBASE but passes WP:GNG with at least 2 significant articles about him linked in the article in question plus I also found this one. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG as not notable. Fails WP:NBASE and sources available are mundane news reports (including the one provided above) allowing only for a career pseudo biography permanent stub. Otr500 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I am not sure what defines a "mundane" news report or why this article, even if it is "mundane", would not be considered significant coverage given that it is a substantial length article from a reliable independent source of which Lindsey is the subject. This article is also all about Lindsey and is hardly a news report. And this is also a significant length article about Lindsey from an independent reliable source and so I am not sure why this would not meet the actual GNG definition. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 11:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Rlendog, which overrides WP:NBASE. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Los Angeles Angels first-round draft picks. The coverage cited for GNG is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and thus actually doesn't go towards establishing GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 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. Can be merged with Christian National Party if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nationalist Party[edit]

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

Delete content of this disambiguation page and redirect it to Christian Nationalist Crusade which mentions the topic and has a hatnote to the other possible use of the term Parti nationaliste chrétien. Parti nationaliste chrétien is not normally known by the English translation. My edit to redirect boldly was reverted [16] by user:Emass100 (see diff for explanation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At the time when the Parti nationaliste chrétien was active, Quebec was still an officially bilingual province, so we cannot assume that the English translation of their name was not normally used to refer to them within the English community. I also call into question the redirect to Christian Nationalist Crusade, as this was not the same entity as the party it was affiliated to, the Christian Nationalist Party, which currently doesn't have a page of its own. Therefore, I think this Dab page should remain as is per WP:NOPRIMARY, until someone decides to create a page specific to the Christian Nationalist Party. Emass100 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not keep the disambiguation page as it is? And have a "for/see" top hat in the page about the Christian Nationalist Crusade? That way, both the user looking for the exact name "Christian Nationalist Party" and the user mistaking CNP for the Crusade would be properly served. -The Gnome (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’ve taken the liberty of cleaning up the page per MOS:DAB and removing the cleanup template. I’m neutral on deletion. — Gorthian (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaaaand I added another entry, though I’m not entirely certain it’s a dealbreaker for this discussion. — Gorthian (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe merge the entries at Christian National Party, into this one to make a beefier combined DAB page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nom. That's a very good idea: if closing admin closes as merge then I'm happy to do the work. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:24, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shirasangi Lingaraj Desai[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment well if living to the ripe old age of 145 years old isn't notable, I dont know what is! The Guiness Book of Records still seems to think the oldest person is that young whippersnapper Jeanne Calment tho... Curdle (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~To be fair, at the risk of spoiling some nice irony, the article gives Desai's birth date but no deathdate, but uses the verb "was" in the lead sentence,~~ and never says that he is still alive. Indeed the latest date that any act of his is mentioned is 1906. It says that the trust set up with his funds is still making payments, but that is quite different. (No opinion yet on keep vs delete.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the infobox- birth and death date, both referenced.

You are correct, I ahd missed the infobox. The source there is primary, in fact a court document. I rather suspect that "2006" is an error for "1906", but if so it is an error in the source. If this is kept, I would remove the infobox death date as not reliably sourced. As the court document says that the person who died was the testator of the will that created the trust, this is probably not a different person of the same name. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. Only thing he seems to be known for setting up the Navalgund-Sirasangi Trust in 1906 It has four refs; one is what appears to be an Indian Government minister's website; said politician claims to be descended from the subject, so cannot be considered neutral. Two is a travel blog- which barely mentions the subject anyway. Three is some sort of legal document? which looks like a primary source regarding the trust and passing mention of a death, which is more than likely not actually the original Shirasangi Lingaraj Desai, considering it was 100 years after the trust was founded (thats where death date in the infobox comes from) and Fourth is a google books excerpt which is mainly about the trust. I couldnt find much anywhere else except two passing mentions in the Hindu saying he was a wealthy philanthropist who founded the trust. Curdle (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - very little online coverage exists, but he was apparently part of the royal family, and a notable college and education society was named after him. The Hindu reported that his 153rd birthday was celebrated, which certainly meets Wikipedia's policy of having enduring coverage. [[17]] Weighing the loss of news with the passage of time, and the language barrier, I think there's something here just barely worth keeping. Hopefully the article can be expanded. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep internet search reveals another source, which I've added, showing posthumous recognition in 2012.Egaoblai (talk) 15:40, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Logan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as she hasn't played for a senior national team or in a game between 2 clubs from a fully pro league. Fails WP:GNG because the given sources are coverage that briefly mention her and focus more on her club/national team. Other sources online are basically "she made a save" or "the ball went into her net". Dougal18 (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no international caps or pro appearances as a footballer, non-notable.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage and/or international appearances, so clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:17, 2 June 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. by Bbb23 per G5. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P4R4G0N (hacktivist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced statements and not a shred of actual notability. Sounds like a scriptkiddie bragging. Kleuske (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has already been denied of deletion through PROD. I heard of this hacker in IRC that's why it's created. Thus I can't find any major source on him. --IAWI (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @IAWI: Correction: you created the article and removed the prod. AfD is the obvious next step. The fact that you heard of this person is not a reason to create an article. We're an encyclopedia, not facebook. Kleuske (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Insufficient (read: none whatsoever) coverage in reliable news sources or the literature. Fails to meet the minimum persistent and in-depth coverage required to pass WP:BASIC. Just like the article's creator, I too "can't find any major source on him" :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. If it had one source it would have been A7 and deleted long ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone ;) would have just come along and said "Claiming to hack NASA" = a WP:CCS, and we'd still be here... —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per no sense of notability metQuek157 (talk) 13:55, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Guerra[edit]

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

does not pass notability guidelines Wolfson5 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was already deemed worthy of keeping when it was first nominated for deletion in 2016. The voters at that time concluded that sources were available and what the article really needed was to be cleaned up and expanded. I see no evidence that this conclusion would be any different now. While the article has had clean-up notices for a few years, that is not a reason to delete, per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:HANDLE, among others. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, but needs cleanup.

The vote above was by User:Ortizesp. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guerra passes wp:gng per coverage in independent and reliable sources. Zingarese (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More in-depth discussion needed on notability. The first nomination was a NAC and no one demonstrated how the subject is notable. One of them presented a source which is now a dead link. The main point in the first nomination is WP:NOTCLEANUP and it is also brought up here. It would be useful if the keep voters present some actual sources rather than just say sources exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Vote Above: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the more than sufficient coverage set out in either GNG or NMUSIC (sources available either in article or by the list by DarkOrchid - though GDPR concerns will prevent access for some of us) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:46, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Kaur Roy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Significant coverage not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her documentaries have received international acclaim, especially her most recent one Amoli. If the article can't be kept in its current form, it shouldn't be deleted. It should at least be turned into an article about Amoli, which easily has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep looks notable for now according to references Heshiv (talk) 09:29, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Dismas Prison Ministry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Advertising. The Banner talk 05:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I did improve and tag for "tone" and "advert" and hoping to attract additional editors to work on the article. Also added more categories. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After more cleanup, I removed the "tone" and "advert" tags. Article still can use additional content. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can also do something about the lack of notability, the many related sources and unsuitable sources. As far as I can see not a single non-Catholic source is mentioned. The Banner talk 20:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one [25]? – Lionel^(talk) 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article about the woman and what she did. Beside one (1) passing mention nothing about the organisation itself. The Banner talk 08:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:JoeHebda-thank you-RFD (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination for creation at WikiProject Catholicism: I should add that I have no personal interest in this organization, but feel I am doing Wikipedia a service by creating articles on organizations that editors more experienced than myself think to be notable. It also seems to me to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I suppose if it had caused a scandal it would receive coverage by the secular media, but that wouldn't in any way enhance its reach and relevance which are already nationwide. Jzsj (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Keep -- The scope of this Catholic prison chaplaincy charity without question makes it notable. It is possible that the article needs improvement, but that is a problem with many articles. It implies tagging it for improvement, not applying TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It also needs notability and proper independent sources... The Banner talk 19:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use more discussion on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no mainstream reliable sources available for this topic. The only sources I can find come from Catholic newsletters. There is a similar organization called Dismas House that may be notable (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jean-dewinter/a-re-entry-program-that-works_b_7019256.html), but they don't appear to be connected. Brad v 21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sufficient sources although more would be good. Catholicism is not a fringe topic so catholic sources such as Catholic Herald seem ok, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accord.NET[edit]

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

I have no doubts this is an important tool. But the level of its importance is not at all clear from the article. The sources cited are from software/developers itself and a handful primary sources that say that they were using this tool. Despite the fact it was tagged since 2017, no independent references have been added which discuss the subject in depth. Sample Dubious pieces:

"Multiple scientific publications have been published with the use of the framework.[5][6][7][8][9][10]" - nothing but refbombing. What I see it used in 6 publications, so what?

" featured in multiple books such as Mastering.NET Machine Learning by PACKT publishing and F# for Machine Learning Applications, " - I only see it is featured in 2 books, and may well be that the corresponding parts are written by the software authors or associates; happens all the time. And notewothiness of these books themselves is unclear Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it as I see them in 187 academic papers/articles: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Accord.NET%22. I see their search traffic is about 10% of of scikit-learn: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=accord.net,scikit-learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:F:0:0:0:332 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of them discuss it in reasonable detail? There are 8,000 google hits for "wrench 10mm", but no wikipedia article, and none expected. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2nd relist for more discussion on notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in numerous academic papers, clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Mentioned" is not among our criteria of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 30 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 Withdrawn to allow time for people to work on what they believe is a promising stub with room for improvement. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondment[edit]

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. This was previously a redirect to Wiktionary and for some reason, it has turned into an article that lays out the dictionary definition of the term. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is nothing like a dictionary entry such as found on Wiktionary – there's no focus on the the word qua word; no etymology, grammar and the like. WP:DICDEF explains that there is perennial confusion between stubs and dictionary entries and that what we have here again. The topic has considerable notability as the process is common and so the HR profession has written plenty about it. Andrew D. (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for discussion on notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a valid stub and promising article one someone an work on it. The very first reference in the article is whole academic book discussing the concept. More so in sources like this (Dutch). –Ammarpad (talk) 16:12, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fishtronaut[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, has had no sources for the past eight years and still states that a film is upcomming and set for 2016. A quick Google returns Twitter posts and YouTube videos faster than any news article; in fact, there was no news article at all. Should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 22:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:TVSERIES as it's been aired on a television channel with an international scope (at least Discovery Kids in Latin America.) You can also apparently watch it on Netflix: [26] We don't delete articles just because they haven't been updated in awhile. SportingFlyer talk 23:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It needs significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Being on a television channel with an international scope or Netflix does not actually mean that it has received a significant coverage form independent reliable secondary sources to be notable. Bolhones (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has, that's why WP:TVSERIES is helpful: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] SportingFlyer talk 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misenal and PRNewswire are obviously unreliable. Toon Boom is the closest to in-depth coverage, but you need multiple good in-depths to satsify GNG. All Portoguese ones are just routine coverage, let alone that they are all in a foregin language (sure, there may be reliable foreign websites, but a proper article cannot just build almost exclusively on those). Lordtobi (✉)

Nope. Even assuming some aren't unreliable, major Brazilian papers did a review of the movie based on the television show. How is that routine? SportingFlyer talk 13:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources you pointed out above, except for Toon Boom, are just a handful of paragraphs long and, if Google Translate acted accordingly, only had a short (very short) recap of the topic in oarallel to whatever is the article about. The size of the source website is not of matter, the size of the actual article is, and this is clearly not significant coverage. Furthermore, if you are saying that they reviewed the movie, how does that make the TV series notable? Lordtobi (✉) 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there are many other sources in multiple languages, which is what you would expect from a television show which gets aired on many channels across multiple countries (and easily passes WP:TVSERIES). Did you even bother doing any sort of in-depth WP:BEFORE search? Did you see that it was on YouTube and Twitter and just stop? Honestly, this is one of the biggest AfD misses I have come across in my time doing AfDs. [35] [36] SportingFlyer talk 06:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have done my research and found that reliable, in-depth coverage is far too scarce. Listing unreliable references en masse will not aid the matter either. Lordtobi (✉) 06:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know why you think these sources are unreliable. There's no size requirement for notability concerns, especially when you're trying to satisfy WP:TVSERIES - since television series may not have the same in-depth coverage as say a politician, the fact major Brazilian newspapers reviewed the (second!) movie spinoff shows notability, as does the Indian Infoline Bloomberg-style site showing it's airing on an Indian network, as does the fact there's a musical spinoff. As I've shown, reliable sources showing this is a television series which airs on multiple international networks exist in at least English, Spanish, and Portuguese. SportingFlyer talk 02:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you should review WP:RS and WP:V. Notability is not granted by the lack of '.wordpress.com' and '.blogspot.com' (aka. not a hosted blog), but websites have to meet certain requirements which you will find out when reading the policies. Lordtobi (✉) 05:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:RS and WP:V, and I don't understand why you think these sources are unreliable. You've even said Mi Senal isn't reliable, but it's the website for the channel in Colombia on which the series airs, an important component of WP:TVSERIES! SportingFlyer talk 05:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then that one fails WP:PRIMARY. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily: most importantly, it shows the show has aired internationally under WP:TVSHOW. While that guarantees only likely notability, reviews from major Brazilian papers and film review sites demonstrate notability pretty clearly. Remember this is a children's television show from a non-English speaking country, meaning . [37]. This older article contains a description from when the show started, as well. [38] Heck, a Google Scholar search brings up scholarly articles discussing the show (try the Portuguese name, 150+ hits.) SportingFlyer talk 07:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per SportingFlyer passes in WP:TVSERIES.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets tvseries guideline. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd relist for more discussion on sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TVSERIES and lack of reliable independent sources (WP:GNG). All we have is press releases and promotional material - no independent reliable sources talking about in depth. All we have is advertising. Essentially, the series exists, and is being moderately promoted, but there is a lack of evidence of notability. SilkTork (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would a show that's on several different international networks fail WP:TVSERIES? SportingFlyer talk 01:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSHOW is sometimes misunderstood, and I think it is being here: being "aired nationally" does not "guarantee" that there is significant coverage – it just generally implies that there is. But there are definitely exceptions – e.g. certain unscripted television programs or childrens television series that do air nationally, but still do not generate significant independent coverage. Ultimately, TVSHOW doesn't determine notability – "significant independent coverage" under WP:GNG does. So, when in doubt, try to find if there really is "significant independent coverage". (Note: I'm not actually offering an opinion in this case – I'm just saying editors have to be careful with how they approach use of WP:TVSHOW...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:08, 29 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 Vishnudevananda Saraswati. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Illustrated Book of Yoga[edit]

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

Though cited by various academic papers, and used in exactly 2 outside sources in a Google News search, as written is promotional and unhelpful. Proposing deletion per WP:TNT. Hwdirre (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Someone removed the promotional sentence. As it stands now, it is still unsourced. I'm not sure on WP:N(books) so I'm going to have to punt. Hwdirre (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. The coverage in sources, the level of citation (see GScholar), the fact that it is continued to go through editions and reprints for several decades (meaning it is a classic), having been used by more than one million people (according to Penguin Random House), and the fact that it has been called "close second in worldwide influence" [39] in its field, etc, satisfies NBOOK. Since the book's author has an article, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. There is not, and never was, a case for TNT. James500 (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Agree with reasons above, but the article needs expansion. --Jaldous1 (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vishnudevananda Saraswati. If you don't have reviews to expand the topic, cover it summary style within its parent. czar 09:52, 18 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should not be controversial czar 14:27, 2 June 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 Naruto. Preserving the article history could be useful is someone wanted to use some of the material in another article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jutsu (Naruto)[edit]

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

After delisting this as a good article, I will go further and say that this is actually unencyclopedic as a whole. It is entirely sourced from Naruto itself, with the exception of a couple clickbaity top-10 lists. And it's already described in the Naruto Wikia. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FANCRUFT. There are some mentions of the jutsu in various books, but they are only passing mentions. The most prominent one was about the Sexy Jutsu, which could easily be integrated into Naruto (character)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be merged/or redirect.Truthspeakerknows (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Like the nom's much-needed boldness in bringing this to AFD. Although this is well-organized fancruft, it is still fancruft, sourced almost entirely to primary sources; these kinds of sources cannot be used to gauge notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be a former good article. Could use more participation and significant discussion would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cruft as it has no real-world perspective on the material. Could be summarized in the Naruto article's setting or plot section as "ninja techniques known as jutsus", with a link to ninjutsu. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why not just link "Jutsu" to Martial arts or the appropriate article from Jutsu on the Naruto article instead? I don't see any reason why this should have its own redirect to Naruto as the term means "technique, method, spell, skill or trick" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 30 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. missed this one, nom is a sock. (non-admin closure) ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Indonesia Open (badminton)[edit]

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

WP TOOSOON. IAWI (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Part of BWF World Tour 2018, one of the three major tournaments in badminton in 2018. Florentyna (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I do not see how an important event which is certain to occur later this year can be TOOSOON.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep faulty nomination, for this draftify which this user like to do and do without permission will be suitable. Can draftify don't, clearly can't draftify do. This is no case at AFD. SNOW keep please. Anyway, nominator is a sock. Clearly notable. --Quek157 (talk) 20:37, 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 keep. Procedural keep, nom is sock with history fo disruptive processes. (non-admin closure) ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad al-Hazimi[edit]

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

Fails WP GNG. (I had to bring it here since authors refuses to deal with a PROD). IAWI (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 08:16, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bijoy Kumar Sahoo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Significant coverage not found. Previously deleted with a former AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per WP:Articles for deletion/Bijoy Kumar Sahoo, seven months ago. Since then, he's had more passing mentions in WP:RS including a few national newspapers, usually in connection with the schools he founded, but no significant coverage online of him independently of the schools, and WP: Notability is not inherited. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing significant, in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is well know person in Odisha in education sector. Few more links The weekender TimesofIndia, Brainfeed Economics Times Telegraph Sadhak —Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The Weekender is paid-stuff.Among the rest, barring the Telegraph piece, not a single news-piece is anywhere close to devoting non-trivial significant coverage about the subject, independent of the schools.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with SAI International School Heshiv (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/nov/29orissa.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by PragyanP (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 June 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. Sock nomination, didn't do before (non-admin closure) ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where On Earth?[edit]

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

Quick Google Serch shows nothing to provide a pass through WP GNG. IAWI (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have you tried googling in Korean? Google Search yields plenty of possibly valid results (see WP:NOENG) that can be used to test the WP:GNG argument, it seems. Definitely this article needs the help of a Korean speaking editor. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep both sources cover that in depth but more will be better, per general shows guidelines, once aired it will be notable as it is on national tv. soompi is not reliable but the underlining Korean source quoted by soompi is. clear met gng. why on earth this is not notable, request snow keep. Quek157 (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sock nominator --Quek157 (talk) 18:40, 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 keep. Snow keep, Nom blocked as sock, failure to do proper B4 (non-admin closure) ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delhivery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG IAWI (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:ORG through coverage in non-trivial, secondary sources. References provided in the article are in mainstream publications, and these focus on the company: Economic Times, Mint, Mint. Media coverage also includes articles in The Hindu Business Line, and the Times of India. Shobhit102 | talk 07:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it passes WP:ORGIN as per comment above. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:44, 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 redirect to Alternative comics. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots comics[edit]

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

This article about a non-notable concept is part essay, part advocacy. Neither of the references mention this by name, and the external links are either blogs, dead links, or primary sources. Even if this were notable, which it isn't, it would still qualify for WP:TNT. Reyk _YO! 11:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alternative comics as essentially a badly sourced/written duplicate of that article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 04:50, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Young (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR JMHamo (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are his news coverage from Thailand No. 1 newspaper Thai Rath [40] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That link does not show in-depth significant coverage to satisfy WP:NACTOR JMHamo (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the list of news article tagged with his name. Click on any picture will lead to full, in-depth, news article about him. The articles there only dated back to 2009 (so there are many more offline since he started his entertainment career in 1995). You can see there are already 17 articles there just from one newspaper. Other newspapers are similar but tagging system isn't good. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the WP:NACTOR. Check out this opening of TV series KamLaiMas [41] and 7PraChanBan [42] (both are primetime 8:30pm slot of Channel 3, top rating TV channel in Bangkok and number 2 nationwide) should qualify as having significant role. You can see he was featured early in the opening song. Searching further should turn out more works. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He starred in Death Happens. The Thai article lists thirty-six TV works. I'm quite sure that some of them are significant enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: many sources are in Thai, please help translating/veryfing. Death Happens only source is 404.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, GNG seems to be met (NACTOR would be secondary), but some solid cleanup is in order. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce: How is GNG met? Please explain. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lolz u funny, in that same vein shouldnt ur nom have been less vague??? Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that as you can't prove he meets GNG then with Reliable Sources. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I hesitate to engage with your silliness. Do you not see how flimsy your nom is, and yet you hold people responding to your flimsy nom by higher standards?? You either have failed to exercise basic DUE DILEGENCE as per the sources cited above (and also bearing in mind Paul's comment) or you're just trapped in some fantasy of yours. I did not see a point in rehashing whatever has been listed above but on the other hand you definitely NEED to give much more substantiation regarding WHY he fails GNG (and secondarily NACTOR), taking into account all that has been said so far by myself AND OTHERS Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoflettuce Yes, this kind of behaviour, where AFD nominators make vague calls for deletion and then expect others to do all the work for them is unproductive and rude. It seems to be a growing trend for nominators to use AFD as a place to bully others into improving articles. My suggestion is to provide them with adequate sources and then ask them to edit them into the article. That way you can see if they genuinely care about improving the encyclopedia or just want to score points at AFD,Egaoblai (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more - what's more disheartening is that the nominator is supposedly a seasoned editor (self-proclaimed 12 years of experience) but the quality of his nom is on par with or perhaps worse than a beginner's. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the past he'd been willing to eat humble pie when called out for his sloppiness. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Keep and ask Thai speakers to improve the references. EnWiki is our largest worldwide project and should not be limited by language barriers. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some Thai-speaking editors judge the existing sources and/or provide more? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 04:38, 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. czar 14:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shama Hyder[edit]

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

Highly promotional article, full of spam links, no significant and independent sources. Fails WP:GNG Mar11 (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If she were demonstrated to be notable, which this PR copy doesn't do, WP:TNT would still be called for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tend to agree. Deb (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical non notable PR article damaging Wikipedia's credibilityLyndaship (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we freed Wikipedia of promotional PR rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable self-promoter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 31 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. Low participation but not worth relisting; even if there were insufficient sourcing for an article we would just end up with a redirect to Year of the Snitch per WP:ATD-R, anyway. A Train^talk 17:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flies (song)[edit]

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

Twitter, instagram, lyrics sources are not acceptable for notability. No indication of notability. Mar11 (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just enough coverage on this single out there to justify keeping -- the current state of sourcing in this article is not a matter for deletion, but clean-up. Anyhow article already cites a review by Consequence of Sound, not to mention other things that can be easily added to the article, e.g. SPIN, Highsnobiety, Goseelivemusic, etc. Redirecting/merging to Year of the Snitch would be a weak alternative (still better than deleting) but I would still be inclined to keep. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 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. czar 14:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Benziger[edit]

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

No in-depth, significant coverage. Article mostly focuses on relatives. Neutrality^talk 03:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: A previous instance was deleted after WP:PROD in 2009 and another, contributed by the WP:SPA DrBenziger, was speedy-deleted in August 2013, shortly before the creation of this instance by another new account. As the nominator says, much of the article and two of the references are about other people in the subject's family. The remainder of the article is effectively the CV of the owner of a non-notable company. That said, the subject and her "Benzinger Thinking Styles Assessment" are mentioned in some publications, especially this summary assessment in "Practical Tips for Developing Your Staff". However, while these make the matter closer than it might appear on first reading of the present article, I don't think they provide enough to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 31 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 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. A Train^talk 17:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Campa-Najjar[edit]

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

Unelected political candidates do not inherently pass WP:NPOL and, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, must be able to achieve widespread coverage independent and unrelated to their campaign or candidacy. Currently, the only WP:RS in this article for Campa-Najjar that is not within the context of his candidacy is a brief mention in an LA Times article. A BEFORE search fails to find much else. Chetsford (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This amounts to basically a campaign brouchere. Wikipedia is not the place for candidates to public office to advance their political campaigns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I must say, this is closer than a lot of the ones we've kept recently as he's been profiled in Al Jazeera. That being said, he doesn't pass WP:GNG when he's not a candidate, and the coverage about him as a candidate doesn't pass the ten year test. Best to redirect in line with what we typically do with unelected candidates. SportingFlyer talk 21:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you like it redirected? Chetsford (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 perhaps? SportingFlyer talk 17:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I find this a convincing alternative. Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This candidate is receiving far more coverage than a typical candidate. Even if you ignore the "standard" local campaign news like announcements to run, his candidacy still satisfies WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. There are several examples of non-local and even international coverage of his campaign.[43][44][45][46] There's also a sourced article about him in The Atlantic that doesn't have anything to do with his campaign.[47] Lonehexagon (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic source is not about him — it's a Q&A interview in which he's the speaker, but not the thing being spoken about, so he isn't its subject for the purposes of its GNG-worthiness. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s about him in a reliable source but not written by him. I don’t see how it’s not a sign of notability that a national newspaper would be covering him in that way. What guideline states that it does not indicate notability? Lonehexagon (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source quoting him speaking about something else is not the same thing as a source being about him. He has to be the subject of a source, not merely quoted speaking on some other subject, for that source to assist in establishing notability. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 - a usual and an appropriate outcome for candidates for Congress. --Enos733 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The fact that one extralocal media outlet grants one piece of coverage to a local candidate is not, in and of itself, an instant pass of the "more notable than most other candidates test" — over the course of the election campaign, at least half of all candidates nationwide will be able to show at least one such piece, because "digging into individual races to see if they can tell us anything important about the national mood" is a thing national media do too. If the nationalized coverage were exploding to Christine O'Donnell or Jon Ossoff proportions, then there'd be a case that he was more notable than most other candidates — but a candidate does not instantly pass the notability bar for candidates the moment you can show one source that exceeds local and WP:ROUTINE. And of the 15 sources here, seven of them (effectively 50 per cent, since 0.5 of a source is impossible) are primary sources that do not assist notability at all, such as his own campaign website, his own Twitter feed, his own LinkedIn and pieces of his own writing about other things. Of the eight that are real media coverage, several of them just namecheck his existence within coverage of other things, so they don't help get him over GNG, as he isn't their subject, and another is the routine "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that media outlets have to send to every candidate, so it's not evidence of notability because its existence or lack thereof for any candidate is a question of the candidate's choice to respond or not, not of the media outlet picking and choosing who gets one. So toting up the references that actually count for something, there simply aren't enough left to deem him a special case over and above other candidates, and the fact that one of them is Al Jazeera isn't a magic bullet all by itself.
The notability test for an election candidate is not "does some temporarily newsy media coverage exist today?" — because, again, for election candidates it never ever doesn't — but "does the media coverage that exists today already demonstrate a compelling reason to believe that even if he loses the race this fall, people will still be looking for information about him ten years from now anyway?" Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly not a “campaign brochure”; instead it is a brief factual account that is based on multiple reputable cited sources. I am the original author of this article. I am not affiliated with the Campa-Najjar campaign. If Campa-Najjar happens to lose in the primary, the outcome would then likely be that the article should be deleted. According to the information at WP:POLOUTCOMES: “Candidates who ran but never were elected…” and “Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable…” are often merged into lists or deleted. If, as appears more likely, Campa-Najjar moves on to the general election, he will then receive much more widespread attention and the article should certainly be kept. Campa-Najjar is the presumptive Democratic candidate in the election, as he leads the polling and fundraising among the Democrats, and has received the endorsement of the California Democratic party among many others. True, this campaign has not yet reached the level of coverage that Ossoff’s eventually did, but bear in mind that it is still primary season. Campa-Najjar is notable as the first Latino Arab American congressional candidate, as well for being an unusually young candidate. Campa-Najjar’s likely opponent in the race, Duncan Hunter, is currently under FBI investigation for improperly diverting campaign funds for personal use. Overall, this is a particularly noteworthy candidate. To some degree, various media articles already indicate the notability, but in principle they only reflect noteworthiness, they do not create it. If the current version of the article does not adequately reflect the noteworthiness of the subject, you can fix it. In the words of the page linked by Bearcat (at ‘years from now’): “Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Also, editors updating an article affected by a current event may not necessarily be the same ones participating in the clean up and maintenance of the page months or even years later. Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism.” B P G PhD (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"True, this campaign has not yet reached the level of coverage that Ossoff’s eventually did, but bear in mind that it is still primary season. " - Generally, we don't create articles on people whom we think might become notable at some point in the undetermined future (see: WP:CRYSTALBALL). If we did, every garage band in America would have an article here. Chetsford (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:TOOSOON. Individual has received coverage primarily for a single event therefore per WP:BIO1E the individual biography should be redirected to the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:03, 31 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Dean[edit]

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

One novel does not, in most instances, make an author notable. This one certainly does not. While The Madonnas of Leningrad may be notable (although that is debatable), this author clearly does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Prod was reverted without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment meets wp:NAUTHOR: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Psyduck3 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above she meets NP:Author. She has several works that have been covered substantially in reliavle independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please proved those substantial sources. Saying something is there, without proof, isn't really an argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several examples are already cited in the article. An argument doesn't require proof. But there you have it. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found wikiarticle on The Madonnas of Leningrad (it meets WP:NBOOK), have added to that article. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I've found and added some sources. If only people would take the trouble to find and add references to articles before they post them up, it could save everyone a lot of time that gets wasted in discussing notability. Deb (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should qualify under WP:AUTHOR as she has multiple reviews for her books - The Madonnas of Leningrad [48][49][50], Confessions of a Falling Woman [51][52][53]. Hzh (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets WP:NAUTHOR. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oh look, someone has created an article on The Mirrored World, another notable book (come on coola it was you:))Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, has written notable books. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dogpile keep. You might think that a good-faith due-diligence nominator, before trying to claim that an author was non-notable because only one book, would actually verify that they are the author of only one book. (Of course, it's the multiple reviews, not the multiple books, that makes this subject notable. But still. Getting such a basic thing wrong indicates a clear failure of WP:BEFORE. Especially since even the nominated version of the article lists four books.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable author of multiple seriously-reviewed books. PamD 09:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "coola stop creating book articles! but Confessions of a Falling Woman is another notable book by Dean.":)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD et al. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as WP:AUTHOR with multiple non-trivial reviews, such as: In her excellent second novel, "The Mirrored World"... etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NAUTHOR and GNG. Not sure about the claim she only wrote one notable book, looks like three. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject meets WP:NAUTHOR, unless my brain cells are playing games again. -The Gnome (talk) 20:36, 1 June 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 14:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Faraz Ahmad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 00:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows his work is impactful, or even that anyone has ever felt like writing a significant work covering him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 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. czar 14:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counterspace[edit]

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

Seems to be wholely original research. I cannot find any other information on "counterspace" online. The article appears to have been created by the concept creator, Nick Thomas, in 2006. As per WP:OR and WP:GNG. Only other source may refer to something different, I cannot find a copy of it online. Acalycine (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Interestingly the term itself seems to be used in a variety of ways. I would not be surprised to see a disambig page of some sort. But this entry doesn't appear to me to be useful. For an example of one of the ways the term is used see "Counterspace"+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy_4XBqqLbAhVQ7VMKHTY8AnkQ6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q="Counterspace"%20-wikipedia&f=false here. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's a merge/redirect target I overlooked. There are sources, such as Olive Whicher's 1975 The Idea of Counterspace. But that book in particular reveals what is going on here, as its original publisher was The Anthroposophic Press. Indeed, this is fringe stuff: a pseudoscientific effort to apply some form of math and physics to the philosophy of anthroposophy. This is too minor a facet to warrant merger to the main article on that topic, either, and I don't think there's any related article that actually would serve as a redirect target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ~~unsourceable and~~ fringe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this is unsourcable does not stand up. Undoubtedly, everything in the article can be sourced to Thomas's book(s). It may even be notable—Thomas's ideas are discussed inependently in books here and here. The real problem with this article is that the idea is WP:FRINGE, and then some, but it is presented, in Wikipedia's voice, as being mainstream. In the absence of sources discussing the validity of these ideas and an editor willing to rewrite the article, I'm going for delete on the grounds of WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:TNT. It wouldn't be so bad if this was obviously a fringe/spiritual subject, but we just can't have psuedoscience being presented as real science on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 13:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I am not the original author of this entry (see my wikipedia history, I just revived this page + edited) - I have been looking for some information on Counter-space/counterspace for a while (not the spiritiual/fringe one, but rather the mathematical one - look at this youtube video for a demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGf36UQ9elE). I went to add this page because the George Adams Kaufmann page, as well as his books, go into detail about counterspace, with no links there. So I think having a page on the subject is reasonable and matches wikipedia policy. When I went to create this page, I noticed that the author of one of the sources (Thomas) already had a page written, and I figured I wasn't going to be able to make one that's better than what an author did, so I revived it and did some editing (e.g. removing some of the spiritual points, and rather trying to stick to the mathematics and non-eucluidean geometry aspects of it). I'm certainly all for a disambiguation page if there's other more notable mentions of the subject, but if we can't even revive it for ONE reason, I don't see how we're going to revive it for multiple. Certainly, if anyone wants to edit the page & remove anything they don't feel is worth mentioning, or rewording anything, I'm all for it Marquinho
Delete as unremarkable WP:FRINGE material. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's some here: https://books.google.com/books?id=zWNJPwAACAAJ&dq=counterspace&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE94yRo6vbAhVDS6wKHZ9CANoQ6AEISjAF, https://books.google.com/books?id=LnPfMgEACAAJ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis8smgo6vbAhULG6wKHbh4DJ8Q6AEILzAB Marquinho
- I've moved the above text which you inserted inside another user's post. You really mustn't do that, you are changing what someone else has said. You apparently offered these in response to the comment the the source cannot be found online. Those links are to books that cannot be previewed online and therefore doesn't answer the point. It merely shows that someone wrote a book with "counterspace" in the title. Have you read those works? If not then this adds nothing to the discussion. SpinningSpark 18:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first of those two sources is published by Verlag am Goetheanum and the second by Rudolf Steiner Press. The former was the in-house publisher of the Anthroposophical Society until it was de jure given independence in 1995 to maintain the society's charity status; it is de facto not an independent publisher. The latter is the Steiner estate's exclusive publisher and distributor in the UK, and publishes essentially only anthroposophy-related material. Neither of these constitutes an independent source for showing that this concept has any currency at all outside of anthroposophy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt as WP:FRINGE which is presented in a non-critical tone. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were notable, it would need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic form. As it stands, this is mainly OR. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Very original. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 1 June 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.