Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 May	5 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 merge to Jewish Museum Milwaukee#Sara Spira postcards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Spira[edit]

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

Nonnotable Holocaust victim. Wikipedia is not memorial. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found to show that she passes notability. Eagleash (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears the University of Wisconsin has done a lot of historical research on her, and her postcards have been displayed in the Jewish Museum Milwaukee and possibly the National Holocaust Museum. [1] Probably doesn't get her to WP:GNG, but I would recommend voters should do a before search of their own. SportingFlyer talk 23:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find. Agree it may not achieve GNG, but there might be more out there somewhere. Eagleash (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More links per above. University of Wisconsin course using her postcards as examples of an ordinary individual's experience of the holocaust: [2]; some description of her biography in the museum exhibit's description: [3]. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment. There are a substantial amount of citations here to keep this article in the project. Are any of the letters mentioned in the article commonly referenced by historians? Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article by the UW professor who incorporated them into his course on the holocaust, the family rediscovered the correspondence in 2015.Bitzan, Amos (Fall 2016). "Postcards from Europe's Edge: Centerpiece of Holocaust History Course" (PDF). Mosse/Weinstein Center for Jewish Studies Newsletter. 17 (2): 4–5. Retrieved 2018-05-06. I am finding one Google hit for Sara Spira in a work published after that date but am unable to verify mention in the text. Holocaust Postal History: Harrowing Journeys Revealed Through the Letters and Cards of the Victims (2016). 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, none of the postcards have been used as primary sources in published articles by historians yet, although they have been described in the article above, Bitzan, Amos (Fall 2016). "Postcards from Europe's Edge: Centerpiece of Holocaust History Course" (PDF). Mosse/Weinstein Center for Jewish Studies Newsletter. 17 (2): 4–5. Retrieved 2018-05-06.. The book, Gordon, Justin (2016). Holocaust Postal History: Harrowing Journeys Revealed Through the Letters and Cards of the Victims. Six Point Watermark. ISBN 9780997840100, mentioned above does not refer to Sara Spira's postcards in the text. It is highly likely that the postcards will be commonly referenced by historians in the future, in the wake of the exhibit at the Jewish Museum in Milwaukee, the course at the University of Wisconsin, and the slated move of the postcards to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's archive next fall, where they will be permanently housed. I, for one, plan to use the material in my own forthcoming work. However, until that point, I agree that the article would be better off merged to Jewish Museum Milwaukee#Sara Spira postcards Amos Bitzan Amos Bitzan (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, or possibly merge to Jewish Museum Milwaukee, as "Jewish Museum Milwaukee#Sara Spira postcards", as they were exhibited there. This appears to be part of a class project centered on the postcards. I came across the course page because another editor has rewritten (to good results) a page on a Holocaust perpetrator. See Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Wisconsin-Madison/HIS_224_-_History_of_the_Holocaust_(Spring_2018): "Students will write a Wikipedia article related to some aspect of the Sara Spira correspondence." More in this article in the University's newsletter: pp. 4-5. In any case, keep the material and any merge discussion can happen on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a merge to Jewish Museum Milwaukee#Sara Spira postcards. Most of the content can be merged. This would improve the target article which is devoid of 3rd party citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jewish Museum Milwaukee#Sara Spira postcards - I do not see from the sources in the article, or in my BEFORE, enough sources for WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jewish Museum Milwaukee#Sara Spira postcards a useful addition to the Museum's page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jewish Museum Milwaukee#Sara Spira postcards at least until such time as there are further references satisfying GNG. The target article will benefit from the additional cited material. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. There's some usable content & it'd be a shame to lose it completely. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 4889[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:MILL episode of a soap opera; possibly promoted more than other episodes. I'm a bit of a deletionist regarding TV shows, but all I see here is TV Guide-esque coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another episode of a daily soap opera which seems to only have an article here because of a clear "awards bait" episode. No offense to the actor's introduction, but it's pretty much a hidden press release for their intro, which we definitely are WP:NOT. Nate • (chatter) 00:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Individual soap episodes generally aren't notable, and this one isn't. Also see Category:Hollyoaks episodes, there is just one other. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Hollyoaks characters (2018)#Harley Frater and Peri Lomax, then delete. Although individual soap episodes generally aren't notable, sometimes they are so I don't think that should be taken as a reason for deletion. However, this one doesn't seem especially notable, at least not at this time. If the episode itself goes up for some award, that could change. I think some of the information in the article could be kept as development information for the characters involved, and therefore could be merged to those articles if the information is not already in them. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 11:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom reason by Power~enwiki. --VitalPower (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the TV Guide. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 17:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual fetishism[edit]

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

Article has gone uncited for about 5 years now. The article creator (Rafaelosornio) claims to be a psychologist and the original article (c. 2013) quotes a "Rafael Medina." It appeared to be OR at the time. The current state of the article states, "fetishizing the experience or a related experience, such as submission or humiliation." Submission and/or humiliation is not exclusive to homosexuality (BDSM). Next the term "homosexual fetishism." In reviewing some academic literature, the term is referred to with regards to leather, foot, or other types of sexual play that is not exclusive to homosexuality. I think this article needs to be deleted, without discrimination for a better referenced/defined article in the future. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As was already mentioned by @Classicwiki: it's completely unsourced. My cursory glance of sources found it to be an outdated term for "homosexuality" (not denying Classicwiki's findings, but yeah, I'm not seeing this being a simultaneously distinct yet unified topic). I've previously had to fuss at the author for copying and pasting text from the Catechism into articles. That suggests a lack of academic rigor that would render their work suspect even if they are a real psychologist. That's probably why the term is not used in any article on the site. Also, the article currently reads like it's suggesting that homosexuals are really only pretending to be gay because they're dirty, dirty perverts. I'm having trouble seeing Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over applying. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of value in the current version or elsewhere in the page history. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable at all, also possibly a hoaxy dictionary definition? SportingFlyer talk 23:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five years and there is even less here than the original unsourced stub that should not have been accepted. We can always create a proper article on this if needed and properly sourced. I find it interesting that a new editor appears, claims to be a psychologist with their first edit, spends 3 days editing exclusively sexual topics (transvestism, homosexuality, fetishism, and pedophilia), and then five years editing exclusively religious topics. Meters (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally ambiguous title, dict def. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rather ridiculous article that offers no content value to the project. Chetsford (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 21:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dairyland Dare[edit]

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

I can't find enough non-local, non-trivial sources to give this a WP:GNG pass. The coverage I found on Google News was all trivial. The coverage on Highbeam.com was largely routine local coverage. No apparent coverage outside of the Madison, Wisconson, area, meaning it fails the part of WP:N that requires at least some non-local attention. Also note the COI creator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not pass WP:GNG for events. Perhaps if more citations are added in draft spage, it can be recreated in the future. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; clearly does not pass GNG Chetsford (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lending Works[edit]

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

Exclusively promotional article for questionably notable business sourced mainly to primary, listings, PR rehashes and routine announcements. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that present to a broader audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has references from Guardian, Crowd Insiders and Tech Crunch. I've toned down the promotional aspect. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some of the references lie on the edge of long mentions/significant coverage, but others are full articles, including in significant references. While issues with OR remain in some, there is more than sufficient notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability. Not one of the references passes the criteria for establishing notability. The TechCrunch article is based on an interview and fails WP:ORGIND. The Guardian reference is a listing of "The Major Peer to Peer Lenders" from 2014 and is also based on information provided by the company, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. The Crowd Insiders reference is based on an interview with the founders, is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an article about a small business that seems to have no major notability. I agree with the nominator on this one. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Corporate puffery. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2006 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is unlikely to be notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The TVB awards are similar to and hold the same prestige as the Daytime Emmy Award held here in the United States, which also have separate articles for each year’s winners. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I argued in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 TVB Anniversary Awards, it would be 'one thing if this celebrated the entirety of Hong Kong television, but this is literally an infomercial for TVB programming that gets trophies merely for existing on TVB (along with the insufferable ballot stuffing that comes with singular-network awards).' If no other network can participate in this ceremony, then it's not a true award on merit, but just an award for existing on TVB. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also for the rest of the AfD, if your logic is there, then many other awards pages which is linked to a specific channel needs deletion. e.g. 2018 Star Awards or 2016 SBS Drama Awards. Either Keep all or Link/Merge all or Delete all as Wikipedia must have consistency. So what is your stand??? --Quek157 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER Comment For different countries in Asia, it's different. In Hong Kong, the only terrestrial channel is TVB. And many people (no citation for this though) does watch only TVB as it is almost the only FTA. So Since the majority only watch the channel and only that channel have that kind of exposure, it will be deemed as 100% of the nation. For Korea, yes, there are KBS, EBS, MBC, SBS but each have their own awards, (if you reference the korean wiki, the entertainment awards are given their whole page also). For Singapore, my home country, we only have MediaCorp and Star Awards are the national award - even the Minister in charge of Communications will officiate. So my final criteria of notability that I can propose is that

1. If the terrestrial channel have significant share in the country and (EMPHASIS) the page is properly cited (i.e. with secondary reliable sources), we should Keep as per meeting WP:GNG. (or any other benchmark you can propose)

Implications of this approach: A lot of tedious admin work is needed and there will be so much trawling to be done, so it's hard...

Therefore, I wold humbly propose that this entire Afd to be "no consensus" and keep and the nominator should go through each and every site in Asia for awards which are contentious and do a group Afd (meaning all the articles together). This will generate enough consensus (and ease the process for all of us to see) + this will allows trends to be seen plus admin backend work will be easiler. disparate Afds makes it very hard for another people to see and edit. Will also copy this to others Afd by nominator... as per othr Afd --Quek157 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Addition: My meaning of group Afd is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). --Quek157 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy to an established editor in good standing who wishes to merge this information elsewhere J04n(talk page) 18:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2007 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is unlikely to be notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The TVB awards are similar to and hold the same prestige as the Daytime Emmy Award held here in the United States, which also have separate articles for each year’s winners. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I argued in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 TVB Anniversary Awards, it would be 'one thing if this celebrated the entirety of Hong Kong television, but this is literally an infomercial for TVB programming that gets trophies merely for existing on TVB (along with the insufferable ballot stuffing that comes with singular-network awards).' If no other network can participate in this ceremony, then it's not a true award on merit, but just an award for existing on TVB. I would also argue deletion on the entire strand of TVB award articles. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also for the rest of the AfD, if your logic is there, then many other awards pages which is linked to a specific channel needs deletion. e.g. 2018 Star Awards or 2016 SBS Drama Awards. Either Keep all or Link/Merge all or Delete all as Wikipedia must have consistency. So what is your stand??? --Quek157 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly? Delete them all. I don't know if this is the status quo for all Asian awards shows that networks put them on to only award their own shows, but anywhere else in the world, a neutral body awards trophies in a competition involving all networks and stations because it gives the appearance of neutrality at least. The way this ceremony comes off is a corporate awards ceremony which just happens to involve a TV network and gets to air on that channel, and the executives behind that network can do whatever they want to manipulate the results without any scrutiny outside of 'show fans' trying to keep them honest. I just don't understand the point of us cataloging what seems to be the equivalent of Janice from Accounting winning "Best Employee from Accounting" for only ABC Widgets, Inc. rather than from the National Widget Industry. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER Comment For different countries in Asia, it's different. In Hong Kong, the only terrestrial channel is TVB. And many people (no citation for this though) does watch only TVB as it is almost the only FTA. So Since the majority only watch the channel and only that channel have that kind of exposure, it will be deemed as 100% of the nation. For Korea, yes, there are KBS, EBS, MBC, SBS but each have their own awards, (if you reference the korean wiki, the entertainment awards are given their whole page also). For Singapore, my home country, we only have MediaCorp and Star Awards are the national award - even the Minister in charge of Communications will officiate. So my final criteria of notability that I can propose is that

1. If the terrestrial channel have significant share in the country and (EMPHASIS) the page is properly cited (i.e. with secondary reliable sources), we should Keep as per meeting WP:GNG. (or any other benchmark you can propose)

Implications of this approach: A lot of tedious admin work is needed and there will be so much trawling to be done, so it's hard...

Therefore, I wold humbly propose that this entire Afd to be ~~"no consensus" and keep~~ and the nominator should go through each and every site in Asia for awards which are contentious and do a group Afd (meaning all the articles together). This will generate enough consensus (and ease the process for all of us to see) + this will allows trends to be seen plus admin backend work will be easiler. disparate Afds makes it very hard for another people to see and edit. Will also copy this to others Afd by nominator... --Quek157 (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Addition: My meaning of group Afd is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). --Quek157 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge WP:LISTCRUFT WP:FANCRUFT - I can't believe that so many articles have been created in regard to an award given by a TV station for its own programs! A lot of information is duplicated in other articles to justify a dedicated template Template:TVB_Awards. The information can easily consolidated to a single article. All these separate articles don't add much value. I am familiar with Hong Kong TV and I understand the dedication and passion of the HKers that most likely created it, but it has limited relevance in English speaking environs. I know that these articles have a Chinese language counterpart which may have greater relevance to justify existence. Acnetj (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment relevance doesn't seem to have anything to do with notability which is where an article stands or not. I don't mind merging all the pages into one though. will rather merge than delete. the template is another thing . that will be a tfd. problem is how to merge. The fact that it have an article for each year at Chinese wiki is in fact stronger for the keep as it means that it's notable in Chinese wiki. remember many English Wikipedia articles comes from translation of other languages and since notability is established there. this may lend some weight here. though transwiki may be one but this is Wikipedia in different languages not as if it's wiki dictionary. I am still of neutral stance leaning to keep as no real good arguments coming upQuek157 (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Quek157 (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final take for me in these disparate Afds, no particular opinion as there are values to keep, delete have some reasons, while merge / redirect seems nice and appropriate, merging into TVB will cause a lot of information to be lost, to merge all the awards into 1 article will lead to a mammoth, to cut doesn't seem right. I think some of those who proposes merge should contact the editors / wikiproject to try to merge or create a proper new article which will lend more weight with combined sources than just one per page. --Quek157 (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The amount of coverage for this award is WP:UNDUE in English Wikipedia. All the programs awarded are Cantonese programs and all awardees are Cantonese speakers. Probably has no relevance outside the Cantonese speaking communities because TVB programs are typically not exported and dubbed in another language for international markets like Korean dramas. Acnetj (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is fine to merge them to a TVB Awards page for all years and all categories but not each article for each year and each category. Acnetj (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am ambivalent on this. On one hand, it's very attractive proposition as that will be good. On the other hand, the current article is 115,284 bytes, given that we are merging based on categories, it should be reduced to 60,000 bytes (around). With 13 years, it will be 780,000 bytes (if we do plain formatting it may reduced to around 400,000 bytes). Unless we remove the nominees. I will think such a list is way too big and hard to understand. We have to really find a way to merge. And why am I copying and pasting my comments on every Afd everytime. I really hope nom will group all articles together. Do also note that the 2016 version is closed as "non-consensus" by another admin 78.26. I am not sure why these comments are not there and now suddenly there is an influx of such comments after that particular Afd was closed. I hope all are done in good faith. We may need to revisit the Afd also. --Quek157 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - Such lists are useful when properly referenced for Afd (ironically), see how the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Joong progresses, a list for 2016 SBS Drama Awards makes the notability of a person so clear. I know this is not an argment as to whether this list can meet WP:GNG but is a good reference for any admin / NPP / Afc participant to determine whether that person passes WP:GNG. --Quek157 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rónán mac Colmáin (Irish poet)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - only source provided is a passing mention. Not a notable poet, with only a singe poem. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - per WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #2. --VitalPower (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nervous (Gavin James song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - most sources are either the song itself, or passing mentions. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This much chart coverage worldwide makes it pass WP:NSONGS. There could be sources found for the rest of the page. It's notable. Ss112 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it should be redirected, but the song seems too obscure. We need get secondary sources that substantially cover the single that prove that it's notable past making it to the charts. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the original charted as well as a remix, which means WP:NSONGS is satisfied or close to being satisfied on multiple fronts. SportingFlyer talk 02:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - generally a song popular enough to chart in 9 separate major charts across multiple different countries is going to muster up enough coverage to scrape by the WP:GNG at least... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Manny Ramirez#Personal life. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Ramirez Jr[edit]

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

Not a notable baseball player. Being the son of a famous person is irrelevant as notability is not inherited, playing in the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball doesn't meet WP:NBASEBALL, and the local coverage of his debut doesn't meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manny Ramirez#Personal life. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. He's playing for an indy league team with the smallest of chances he becomes notable in his own right. I wouldn't argue with straight deletion, but redirects are cheap. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Probably too soon. I will not rule out the possibility of Ramirez Jr being notable some day, but presently he is only known for his father's accomplishments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a redirect to his famous father may make it seem like he is his famous father or cause confusion. Just delete him per failing WP:NBASEBALL. SportingFlyer talk 01:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Many Ramirez#Personal Life. This doesn't make Jr feel notable, it provides a pathway for someone wishing to learn about Jr to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manny Ramirez#Personal life where he is discussed. Redirecting to an article that discuss him in passing does not imply that he himself is notable, and allows anyone who is looking for information specifically on him to find the information that is included within Wikipedia in accordance with our guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He might make the pros one day but right now it is all about his famous father. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manny Ramirez#Personal Life, as has been done with numerous non-notable athletes related to notable ones - see Mariano Rivera III, Tate Matheny, Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), Joseph LaMotta, and Ryan Doolittle for just a few examples. Several of those explicitly had consensus to redirect at an AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 17:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American pornographic actors[edit]

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

This list included in WP:NOTDIRECTORY#6, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Unlike other lists with pornographic themes, a list of pornstar by ethnicity does not promote knowledge and has no encyclopedic value, becoming a "catalog" for connoisseurs. It promotes a racial division that is even criticized by sectors of the pornographic industry itself. And allowing only African Americans excludes the possibility of prominence of other Afro-descendants who work in the pornographic industry. The article needs additional citations for verification since February 2008 Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally unnecessary list per Guilherme. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If List of African-American actors is permissible, what distinguishes this list? The fact that it is associated with pornography? bd2412 T 18:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike List of African-American actors, which has a reason to be here, this list does not. Further, it breaches WP:NOTDIR by potentially becoming a "catalog" for people looking for pornographic actors of African-American descent. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHER. Your question is a good one. In my opinion any list based on ethnic groups should be questioned. But I believe in this list this issue mingles with issues of Ethnic pornography that usually depreciates black people. Perhaps a more general list that featured black people attached to the pornography industry that does not look so much like a catalog is more valid. Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: If this list is deleted. I see no problem in including her participants in List of African-American actors. Porn actor are actor too.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Take away the non-reliable sources and you pretty much have a non-reference article, No evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable cross-categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Yu-won[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Convinced by those arguing for delete. Most mentions are largely about the crazy cool idea the founder had, and only mention the company in passing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dahir Insaat[edit]

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

Not a notable company; the references are largely about the founder Dahir Semenov. Coverage of "viral videos" would not be sufficient for an architecture firm to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, google is showing enough refs [4] [5] etc. Szzuk (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, seems just a little notable. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ignoring if their proposals are realistic or not this company does seem notable from its broad coverage on many diffrent platforms. Here's another good onedesignboom--GlobalSecretary (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the references provided meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most of the references are about the founder, Dahir Semenov, and are not about the company. Notability is not inherited. The toptenz reference fails WP:RS. Both references listed by Szzuk fail the criteria for establishing notability also - the inhabitat.com reference fails WP:RS since it is a blog and this Huff Post] article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. In a similar vein this designboom.com reference also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and nothing more that a thinly veiled advert complete with a huge promotional youtube video produced by the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep when I click on the "News" link above the results include lots of articles about this company and its design innovations. Article is about the company and its leader. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FloridaArmy, can you please post *links* to articles that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? Otherwise a closing admin might dismiss your !vote since you have not offered anything for them to evaluate whether this topic actually meets the criteria or not. The entire first page of News contain links to articles that are based on promotional videos or other literature provided by the company and none meet the criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Just a directory listing, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks in-depth coverage about the company, as most articles contain a paragraph or two providing a brief history of Dahir Insaat. This indicates a failure of the new WP:NCORP guidelines, and I will emphasize the article likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. The sources presented by Szzuk, above, are really just passing mentions of the firm, and the designboom video, while flashy eye-candy, doesn't really say anything about the firm. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CORP, no RS are found this far and agree per the above that these are passing mention, and focus more on invention than firm --Quek157 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Yong-jun[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung-yup[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kwon-jae[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yoon-hwan[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Mitchell[edit]

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

Disambiguation page for which only one of the entries has an actual article (Roger Michell), the rest linking to various other articles where "Roger Mitchell"s or "Roger Michell"s are mentioned. The page used to be an actual article (for the first entry) but it was merged away and the dab moved over it. ansh 666 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid dab page for several people each worth an entry. PamD 08:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And have added E. Roger Mitchell. PamD 08:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several valid entries, with articles or meeting MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION. If someone types 'Roger Mitchell' into Wikipedia, they can see a list of people they might mean and articles with information on Roger Mitchells in them. Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, none of the articles have any information on any Roger Mitchell. They're all just redlinked entries in a table or a list with no further explanation. ansh 666 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They all have bluelinks on the line which go to articles which mention Roger Mitchells and, e.g. show you when the MP Roger Mitchell represented that constituency, who he served alongside and who his immediate predecessors and successors were. MOS:DABMENTION doesn't insist that the information is very detailed, just that we have information on them in that article. Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. This dab page provides useful navigation assistance for searchers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of layout engines (MathML)[edit]

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

Minor niche topic, and it's in abysmal shape. -Pmffl (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly sourced, likely out of date, not presented in a useful form for readers, and mostly original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against creating an up-to-date article on the topic if it can be reliably sourced (cf. Category:Computing comparisons). XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 17:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Kravchenko[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE game coverage and run-of-the-mill transaction coverage. Currently WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NHOCKEY and his best article is on par with a local coverage befitting a local amateur or high school athlete and there do not seem to be enough sources like this one to qualify for "multiple sources". The rest are from blogs, school newspapers (which are not typically considered independent) and promotional material (CA Rubber is an interesting magazine for prospect coverage, but they have a limited distribution/readership and self-describe as "A print and online source of news and features about ice and inline hockey in California, as well as updates on alumni from the state who have moved on to the junior, college and pro ranks" and "To promote the game of hockey and those who play it in California"). For his one acting appearance is nowhere near notable. Yosemiter (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Yosemiter's thorough and accurate examination. Ravenswing 04:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 17:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Mathias[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician and ex-Roman Catholic priest who left the church headed by the Pope of Rome to be an independent Catholic. The coverage is excedingly local, and nowhere near what we expect for a living cleric. Being the pastor of the largest parish in a diocese will get headlines, but it does not make one notable, and we typically even exclude vicar generals of large archdioceses unless they are also ordained as auxilary bishops. In short, this is a run of the mill priest who got into an argument with his local bishop and left the organization that he was originally ordained in. He got headlines because the parish was high profile, but this is passing and local. He is certainly not notable in any way.

On top of that, throw in that this is a pretty obvious autobiography, and you have a good WP:NOTSPAM case for deletion as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated above. Shritwod (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with Tony. Some local renown is evidenced by the local coverage, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not a notable person by our standards--and the article wholly inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; rife with argumentative pov. Kablammo (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main claim in the article involves misusing the term Catholic to try to make Mathias actually seem prominent. Other claims, like being the first Eagle Scout in a village of almost 300 people, actually I still find hard to believe applied to someone in the 1970s. Extraordinary claims call for extraoredinary sources, and we should not be parroting self-promotional rubbish. I am still trying to figure out how the head of a Church with 200-300 people is at all prominent, and the claim that someone who heads a Church with that number was a key figure in bringing a deliberately non-self-defining religious tradition to an area with 3 million or more people ascentral Texas is I just find beyond a believable claim. Wikipedia is not news, and nothing about Mathias raises to the level of news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4 Primefac (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ JY (artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cutting through the usual WP:MUSICBIO chaff (press releases, AllMusic, etc.), article only list two RS. The first, MTV, doesn't actually mention the subject of the article at all. The second, the Sydney Morning Herald, only mentions the subject to briefly lampoon his notability: "If it suits your campaign, though, not to mention your budget, a chap named DJ JY, apparently a 'web celeb UK rap artist', will retweet to his 44,000 followers for just 75¢." A BEFORE search on Google News finds only one mention: his recent performance at a wake. Chetsford (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He passes WP:GNG without any concerns to me. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the latest of many attempts at recreating the salted article DJ JY. See also WP:Articles for deletion/DJ JY (Artist), WP:Articles for deletion/Johnathan Yesson, and WP:Articles for deletion/Johnathan Yesson (rapper). The Mighty Glen: in all of the above AFDs the articles were repeatedly recreated and salted. There's no indication here that anything of note has happened in his career since then, and I can find nothing new online about him. User:WikiDan61 has beat me to the db-g4. It also seems a little odd to me that it was created as a draft by a WP:SPA, and then moved to mainspace the following day by a second account less than a week old. (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD criteria G4 (recreation of article deleted at AfD) and G5 (new article by blocked/banned user). --Finngall ^talk 15:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per above. @The Mighty Glen:, @Chetsford: For the record: I did not know that previous AfD were in place and that it was salted. The author changed the name of the subject. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Maryland, College Park. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Wiener Center[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Article sourced to Center's own website. BEFORE finds no mentions on Google News or newspapers.com. Mentions on Google Books and JSTOR are limited to the bylines and bios of its faculty. Chetsford (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - I edited the article before it was nominated for deletion: I fail to see anything to support a claim of not passing GNG. What I do see is that the article is a fair epilog of the subject, it may be merged into the University's article, or be kept; but I do not think it should be deleted. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I fail to see anything to support a claim of not passing GNG" Article sourced exclusively to Center's own website. BEFORE finds no mentions on Google News or newspapers.com. Mentions on Google Books and JSTOR are limited to the bylines and bios of its faculty. Chetsford (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeChuck's !vote stricken per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Chetsford (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Maryland, College Park as that is where this facility is located. It doesn't seem to merit an article of its own. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to University of Maryland, College Park becuase that is where it is, however it doesn't show any notabillity causng it to be a seperate article. SSSB (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No individual notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Andersson[edit]

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

Doesn't pass basic GNG. The person is not notable enough to warrant his own article. Search engines doesn't have any mention of the guy and his accomplishments as well. Butch.labajo (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Andersson was a football player in Allsvenskan in 1933-1934 which limits the availability of digitalised reference material, but he had 15 appearances in the top football league and scored 7 goals which means WP:NFOOTY is met. Trying to search for information in online sources is made more difficult by the fact that the name Hugo Andersson is common, and there's another football player by the same name in MFF today, but there is a print source in the article which is both independent and appears to be non-trivial coverage. I'll get it from the library tomorrow and check. --bonadea contributions talk 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as per Bonadea. SportingFlyer talk 04:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the argument that Allsvenskan is a fully professional league is somewhat asynchronous – it wasn't at the time, so it's more that he played in a league that would become fully professional. But we've generally wanted to cover the early stages of sports that would later become, so to speak, financially more important. /Julle (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. All the above "keep" votes base their argument on meets/passes WP:NFOOTBALL/WP:NFOOTY/WP:NSOCCER. But Allsvenskan was not a fully professional league by ~~1934~~1931, as the last editor above admits. Further, the SSG found at WP:ATH does not overrule GNG, see the FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Hence no policy-based argument for keeping can be found. Sam Sailor 18:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Ammended, Sam Sailor 07:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For bonadea to report on their findings. As Sam Sailor correctly points out, WP:NFOOTY (as part of WP:NSPORT) is the one SNG that does not replace GNG or WP:BIO, so arguing that just NFOOTY is met is not sufficient. However, 1932–33 Malmö FF season exists as a potential merge target per WP:ATD which should also be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL whether we like it or not. Should be kept and improved.BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (fewer than 25 appearances). SoWhy makes a valid point in his relist comment: consider an ATD outcome; I have changed my !vote. There is nothing much to merge anywhere, as the only available information in the current article is name, nationality, position, games played, and goals scored, and these data are already present in List of Malmö FF players (fewer than 25 appearances).

Our sole source presently is

Alsjö, Martin (2011). 100 år med Allsvensk fotboll (in Swedish). Idrottsförlaget. pp. 307–309. ISBN 978-91-977326-7-3.

I don't believe pages 307–309 are about Hugo Andersson. Think about it: how much could the sources then or now possibly write about a player that only had 1 season, and only played 15 games out of 22 on a team that placed 9? Did anybody pick up the book and had a look at it?

Searching for 100 år med Allsvensk fotboll 307–309 here on Wikipedia, I find the above source has been re-used verbatim in around 200 articles. This suggests that pages 307–309 in the source are mere database entries, and that the mention of Hugo Andersson is trivial. Can anyone find any other sources about him? Sam Sailor 07:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badiuzzan Khan[edit]

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

I am unable to find any sources, other than wikipedia mirrors, to verify any of the information in this stub. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find proper reliable sourcing for it. In principle, the claim that he was "a member of the legislative assembly of Bihar" passes WP:NPOL #1, but we have seen articles created which claimed that their subject held an NPOL-passing role when in fact they did not — so it's not the claim of serving in the legislative assembly that passes NPOL, but the sourcing that can be provided to properly verify that the claim is actually true. And I'm especially suspicious of articles about legislators which fail to specify what district the person represented or when. So no prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually locate verification that he actually held the claimed role (they don't have to be English-language ones, but can be in any language as long as they're reliable and properly verify the claim), but he can't keep an unsourced article just because he's claimed to have held an unverified political office. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible for anyone who can read the Devangari script to verify whether the subject was an MLA from the documents linked here. Unfortunately I cannot read them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Seeing.~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, my results are in negative.Still will conduct a re-search.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A source is located but it's not much helpful except that he existed and belonged to INC.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe someone can read the source provided?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what else to recommend with this article. It's completely unverifiable. SportingFlyer talk 04:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if, like me and unlike Winged Blades of Godric, you are unable to read Devangari script then you are not in a position to recommend anything? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find a source in Devangari script that would imply notability, then I would reconsider. But as it stands, searching for him or things like him brings up only this Wikipedia article and mirror sites. SportingFlyer talk 05:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per my comments, above.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7. So Why 12:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)nadie[reply]

Köksal Bektaşoğlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no notability outside of YouTube videos PapaMichael (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged for speedy deletion. No notability whatsoever, all links are YouTube and facebook profiles. Has been deleted previously. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by IVORK (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 17:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Banik[edit]

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

Moved out of AfC after being declined as not notable. Which was correct, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR appears to have acted only in one film so far. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be a case of TOOSOON, career amounts to very little thus far and coverage does not get her over the GNG threshold. Eagleash (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 17:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic musicians association awards[edit]

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

Non notable award by notable organization to non notable people (since I never see blue linked recipient). Despite the shoddy state of this pseudo-article, there's no speedy criterion for Awards, so here we are. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total lack of refs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs)
Delete. Searching the usual news sources, I was not able to find a single mention of these awards. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mahveotm (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOR/WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mouna Ragam (TV series). J04n(talk page) 18:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Krithika[edit]

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

Actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:NACTOR. Apparently, the subject has appeared only in one notable TV show so far and has not received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, She may have appeared in another couple of roles as well. She probably will end up being notable. Not too sure if she is yet though. I will add that she has attracted some attention for her role in Mouna Ragam.
Here is her profile at newsbugz.com, BIOGRAPHY, Baby Krithika Wiki, Biography, Age, Serials, Images
Perhaps redirect this to Mouna Ragam. Karl Twist (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Twist: I would have redirected it myself but after looking at the deletion log of Baby Kritika I suspected my redirect would have been reverted so felt a discusson was warranted. If others prefer a redirect I would be happy with that but then it should be protected against any changes for a year or so. The source you provided above is not anywhere close to meeting the requirements of a reliable source so we can't use it in article space. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator's comments, not notable enough yet. Norcaes (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would suggest preserving the history and redirecting to the TV series Mouna Ragam as she has attracted a lot of attention and she plays a prominent role in the series. I think her filmography is 2 films and the series. Probably too early for a stand alone article for her. I would say within 3 years she will be a major child star. Maybe not now. So if we can preserve the article's history and just redirect it to the series. Maybe have a sentence or two about here there if there's a section for background on the actors. Then when she is prominent enough to satisfy all the criteria, well add content to the article page. Karl Twist (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Twist: Agree. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Child is a Child[edit]

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

Defunct and apparently minor school based project with no lasting notability (even if it ever was notable). Article says nothing about the organisation itself and there's nothing much in the way of sources to flesh it out. Even the organisation's own web page is long gone. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for utterly failing notability criteria. The article's possibly well intentioned creator could not be bothered with a decent text. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a page about a temporary cause (more like a rant) instead of an article. --Quek157 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Clatworthy[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Did get MNZM but that is well down on the list of New Zealand Royal Honours System. See User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours. MNZM falls short of qualifying a recipient for "inherent" notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Another non-notable St Peter's College old boy created by banned user Rick570. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' not enough to reach WP:ANYBIO NealeFamily (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emendment might be able to follow on with more info from Rick570. Eddaido (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nashville discography. This probably also applies to the other albums listed in Template:Nashville (2012 TV series). Sandstein 05:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Music of Nashville: Season 5, Volume 3[edit]

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

No evidence of notability except for reaching a lowly position in a minor UK chart. Without significant independent coverage it fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There's no reason to delete when a simple redirect to the discography will work. However, I would like to ask - do any of the soundtracks for the show justify articles? Fandomuser21 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Only because redirects are cheap. Had the charts been significant, I would have probably leaned toward keeping, but that is not the case here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Open English. And merge from history as desired. One "keep" supports a merger and another is by a now-blocked user. Sandstein 07:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolette Rankin[edit]

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

This article received some major restructuring and good advice while in draft, courtesy of Jbhunley, but as they note in their analysis of sources (Talk:Nicolette_Rankin#Notability), notability remained weak. Moved to mainspace with, by my assessment, continuing lack of demonstrated notability. All of the sources provided are either passing mentions, news releases, or promo pieces. Searches for better material have been unavailing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom's findings and conclusions. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NBIO. As I said on the article's talk page, which is linked above, the sourcing just is not there. Jbh ^Talk 15:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nicollete Rankin is also known as Nicollete Moreno, and Harvard Business Review indeed did a case study specifically citing her. Specific articles in ABC, referring to Open English being a $350 million business, and her as the co-founder, as well as on Wall Street Journal, meet notability criteria. Article can still be expanded with better sourcing based on using Moreno as surname as well. Simone2049 (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial independent RS coverage of Nicollete Rankin who was known as Nicollete Moreno for much of her professional career. Coverage of Open English lists her as "Co-founder" and "chief product officer." The 2014 HBR case study gives much more space to Nicollette than to her co-founder husband, and she has done significant stuff since their divorce. 03:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs)

Comment sorry I forgot to sign the above. I have also done some work on article references, which were a mess. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is notable information contained in this article, though I wouldn't oppose this being merged into an article about Open English as that's where most of the coverage comes from. A Google search indicates there's a lot more coverage about the company itself than Nicolette. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Open English. I noticed the Open English article was deleted twice, for promo and copyvio reasons, but I'll take a shot at recreating it as a stub with some of the info in here. If I can find enough, then this problem is solved. Give me an hour. In this case, most of the sourcing on her is the Harvard Business Review coverage, which is nice but really more about the company. And I'm not really sure that being featured in HBR puts a business over the top for notability - it just means they had a notable problem that can be a teaching moment for students. I don't see enough other coverage about her - just the company. So fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK - there's an Open English article now. The redirect works now, unless it's Afd's again. Not sure there's much more to merge over about Nicolette beyond what I have already started. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the possibility of a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect –Because the new Open English article is made possible by using complete references of this article and it has stronger claim of notability than this bio. This shows clearly the references are about the programme/website with tangential mention of the founder (which is necessary). This should've been "deleted" if there ware no redirect target. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Open English and have "Nicolette Rankin" and "Nicolette Moreno" redirect there. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Objection IMO Rankin has independent notability. Her ex-husband's company may be more notable than she is but if she is independently notable, why should people searching for info on her be sent to her ex-husband's company? HouseOfChange (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable with reliable secondary references. Hmlarson (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Sandstein 05:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8base[edit]

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

Advertising of newly established minor, non notable business. Entirely sourced to Advert/tech blogs and bussines advert for establisment. No decent independent sources that have indepth third party coverage that is even near to passing WP:NCORP. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this attempt at promotion. -The Gnome (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this marks the third creation of this page within the past month, with the first two speedy-deleted as G11 (advertising). If result is to delete, closing admin should consider salting. MarginalCost (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A substantial proportion of the article is about the company founder's previous ventures, which are of minor relevance and contribute nothing to notability here. The remainder describes features and references start-up coverage of this new venture. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor James[edit]

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

Notability under WP:N Subject is no more than a Support DJ who has done support shows for Justin Bieber. Puff piece entry with no secondary references. Subject body of information largely from subjects own site with no unpaid third party sources such as newspapers etc. Links to TV shows go to Wikipedia entries with no reference to subject. Article started out as something else and "hijacked" by possible paid editors. Delete as per WP:N Dogdox (talk) 05:22, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject's lack of Wiki-notability per WP:NMG. Justin Bieber haters better stay away. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self prophesized "We Know the DJ" site, owned by none other than the subject "Taylor James", is the main source of content for this article. Even so, trying to find something notable to do a rewrite: "Scratching for Justin Bieber" as a claim to notability just doesn't cut it. Bieber no longer tours, hence No longer Biebers Official DJ. That aspect in itself has no notability other than for clever marketing. Lack of third party coverage in sources on anything else that creates any kind notability just isn't here in this article. 220.239.219.20 (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Park Social Media Marketing[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article was added to the AfD a few hours after it was created please allow some time to be improved. Catty5873 03:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Catty5873 Nobody bars you from improving it. You've full seven days to do that. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything dependable. Apparent promotional article sourced with mere business listings and self references. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about a social media marketing company that does exactly that? Surprise! MER-C 11:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many of the refs are about other companies; routine announcement coverage about this firm is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Tokas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSPORTS, at least for now. SportingFlyer talk 02:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for swimmers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rivera (actress)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per too soon. Very minor roles, no in depth coverage. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough, nothing indicating that will change in the immediate future. - Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I was actually going to request userfying but there is literally nothing on any of the films she's been in, No reliable sources at all, Waaay toosoon. –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She was Maria Suarez in the television series Power, where her character had a small role and left, but was brought back as a recurring character. She is also known for playing Daisy in the film Jack of the Red Hearts and as Natalie in the television series Blindspot. It was also recently announced she would be in the newest Purge movie. Lonehexagon (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New information has apparently been added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 02:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR yet. She's made a number of television guest appearances, has had one recurring role, and has not appeared in any major movies. The Purge movie would change my vote, but it's not out yet, and I can't tell what sort of role she will have. Would accept a draftify/userify. SportingFlyer talk 04:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment her Universal Studios role is scheduled to be released July 4 - if she's in the credits, possibly draftify until then? SportingFlyer talk 04:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Warsaw, Indiana[edit]

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

A list of mayors for a town of less than 15,000 people that has been unreferenced for over a decade. Fails WP:GNG and we don't normally keep these. Open to a merge, but wanted to bring it to AfD. SportingFlyer talk 02:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 01:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 01:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While merge might seem to make sense, I'm not seeing it. We have no sourced content to merge, and we certainly shouldn't merge unsourced content. Besides, this is a long list and merging would invite a subsequent forking, which puts us right back here. One has to wonder where this came from. I suspect it was OR like we used to accept years ago. John from Idegon (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sivasubramanian Kanagaraj[edit]

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

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

Delete No evidence in article or in searches of significant coverage to qualify under WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the IP. Sandstein 05:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Murphy (New Jersey politician)[edit]

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

According to WP:BIORELATED, "being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." (He is the son of a former Governor.) Ran in the Democratic primary for NJ Governorship in 1997, but did not pass the primary phase. According to WP:POLITICIAN, only "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Only real claim to fame is having been a County Prosecutor, and I don't see how his role as County Prosecutor for Morris County makes him a "major local political figure ... who received significant press coverage." Also contains a lot of external links, which makes the page seem a little suspicious for self-promotion. (Also contains external links for a client list.) Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and absolute lack of significant coverage. Mredidiongekong (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep. Profiles make it easy to source an article that will pass WP:BASIC, and they support the idea that he was a power in statewide politics. Plus two prosecuting marquee murder cases that drew international attention - not your run-of-the-mill suburban country prosecutor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is not cutting it for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG — there's one article that's substantively enough about him to start counting for something, which isn't enough to get him over the finish line all by itself as the article's only source that counts for something, and other than that it's referenced exclusively to listicles and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other people or things. And nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear GNG, either — people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in gubernatorial primaries, and neither lawyers nor lobbyists are automatically notable just for existing either. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a much better job than this of demonstrating and referencing his notability properly, but what's here isn't close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy had an awfully high profile during the Mohammed Abequa case. See: searches in NYTIMES [6]. I think we need to encounter his work as a prosecutor in looking at notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, Mredidiongekong, Bearcat, I suspect that we differ, in part, because it is my habit to go directly from a politician listed at AfD to a proquest new archive search. Here, for example, Bearcat sees that the page has one INDEPTH profile, but I can see that the NYTimes (a regional source for this NY politician,) ran several others, all with details from which a proper bio can be sourced Running for New Jersey Governor With Rolodex and Stepfather's Fame, New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); 23 May 1997; Ex-Prosecutor Is Third Democrat to Join New Jersey Gubernatorial Race,By BRETT PULLEY. New York Times 11 Apr 1997. The state's newspaper of record, The Star-Ledger and the several substantive dailies and reliable weeklies in the state ran similar INDEPTH. Here is some of the SIGCOV taht ran in the 3rd of NJ's 3 big regional dailies, the Philadelphia Inquirer: DARK HORSE WITH POLITICAL BACKGROUND HITS THE HOME STRETCH: MICHAEL MURPHY, STEPSON OF EX-GOV. HUGHES, HAS WON PLAUDITS. HE HOPES TO TAKE ON WHITMAN. Ginsberg, Thomas. Philadelphia Inquirer; 29 May 1997; "EX-PROSECUTOR PONDERING RACE FOR GOVERNOR", Mondics, Chris. Philadelphia Inquirer, 21 Aug 1996: B.1. "Murphy was appointed prosecutor for Morris County in 1989 and served in that position for six years. Among his cases, he successfully prosecuted the kidnappers of Exxon executive Sidney Reso.". Note that I am NOT arguing that running for Governor makes you notable. I am arguing that running generated WP:SIGCOV and that the international publicity he received as prosecutor in a series of high-profile cases, most notably the prosecution of murderer Arthur Seale and of kidnapper and murderer Mohammed Abequa, confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:POLITICIAN as failed primary candidate, the above articles about the campaign are routine coverage. As a county prosecutor, he's not really notable. And if you actually read up on the Mohammed Abequa case, you'll see his prosecution attempt was unsuccessful since he could not get him extradited from Jordan. And if the man somehow did get extradited, I assure you someone in a much higher level of government (likely at the federal level) would have been responsible, not Michael Murphy. So what does that leave us with, one potentially notable case during his entire time as prosecutor (which I believe was only 4 years)--Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete County prosecutors need a very high level of coverage to make it to notability, and Murphy lacks that. A good example of a notable prosecutor is Kym Worthy, who lead prosecution in multiple notable cases as an assistant prosecutor, who directs the prosecutors office in a county of about 2 million, and was the key figure in bringing down Detroit's mayor Kwame Kilpatrick among others. Murphy was not a prosecutor of this level of impact, and he lost in the primary for governor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think county attorneys and prosecutors and such are often good subjects for an article. On top of what was written about above, Murphy toyed with the idea of running for Senate in 1999, and is actually more famous for the Sidney Reso case, as can be seen in candidate profiles from 1999(https://www.newspapers.com/image/319141674/?terms=%22w%2Bmichael%2Bmurphy%22) and 1997(https://www.newspapers.com/image/178324559/?terms=%22michael%2Bmurphy%22%2B%22sidney%2Breso%22). The 1997 profile also notes his work in domestic violence and advocacy for children. The article satisfies V, NPOV, NOR, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Good references, could us some more. --RAN (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that further exploration of the subject's potential notability as a prosecutor is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 01:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A failed politician who fails the notability guidelines for politicians and isn't inherently notable by any measure. The lack of indepth sources seals the deal for me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in fact, many INDEPTH sources. The question is whether a one-time public prosecutor who handled the Arthur Seale and Mohammed Abequa kidnap/murder cases that drew sustained international attention, fails WP:GNG on the grounds that the multiple, long, INDEPTH profiles of him that ran in the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times, The Star-Ledger, and in local newspapers cause him to fail WP:SIGCOV on the grounds that they ran during campaigns for office, despite the fact that he is no longer running for office. Searches on his name are confounded even when using keywords, because just among Michaels Murphy currently active in politics we have Mike Murphy (political consultant), Mike Murphy (Washington politician), Mike Murphy (New Brunswick politician), Michael Murphy (Indiana politician) - (not to mention the rest of the remarkably long list or Michaels at Michael Murphy (disambiguation).) The first hit on the name in today's gNews search is a documentary filmaker. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and above commentary. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting and still thinking Keep per WP:SIGCOV extending over many years. At a certain point, the effort to apply WP:NPOL strictly - (essential work if we are to keep every American who ever ran for dogcatcher from having a page) - becomes dysfunctional. This is a well-sourced page with many incoming links. Unlike most of the pages that come up on list of Politicians-related deletion discussions, it does not read like PROMO. Moreover, Murphy is still in the news regularly: "Becker previously managed former Morris County Prosecutor Michael Murphy's 1997 New Jersey gubernatorial race.", and our readers do expect to be able to find a guy on Wikipedia after reading Michael Murphy, New Jersey's representative on the commission's two-person board of commissioners, said he believes the bill..., or seeing how much he gets paid Revenue Up 7 Percent for NJ Lawyer-Lobbyists in 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still in the news regularly? Are those sources representative of that because none of them had Murphy as the subject of the article. It seems kinda deceptive to use sources behind a paywall for most editors that name-drop him, and pass it off as the coverage we need.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because paywalls exist with blue-chip sources such as the Wall Street Journal, I included full quotations from these articles. Please retract your accusation that this is "misleading."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I will because that doesn't change the fact Murphy wasn't a significant subject in the sources you provided. That's worth sighing over since this is common practice for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, pretty much standard operating procedure. E.M. Gregory will use any source that name checks a person. Take the source provided that is not behind a pay wall [7], it only has one sentence that mentions Murphy, "Becker previously managed former Morris County Prosecutor Michael Murphy’s 1997 New Jersey gubernatorial race." That sentence is so trivial its not even worth using as a reference. I highly doubt the wall street journal article about the waterfront commission does much more than just quote Murphy either. Murphy was appointed to the commission a few years ago. He is one of two commissioners, the other being from New York. Since it is not a cabinet level position, he does not get auto-notability for this under NPOL. The commission is no longer that important and although it was created to prevent crime and corruption (ie. the kind of stuff going on in On the Waterfront), it has itself become corrupt, see [8] and the states are thinking about disbanding it.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you supposed to be voting twice? - Ambrosiaster (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops. thought I had commented without actually iVoting.

Comment - I added four Newspapers.com sources (check out WP:TWL if you are interested in free accounts for Newspapers.com and other databases, its great!) and reorganized the page a bit. Two in particular are significant, this from 1998 and this from 1999. All four articles are in the Morristown, NJ local paper and are written by local paper staff writers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, nice cleanup of article, and i NOTE that the 1998 article you mention is INDEPTH and is entitled Former Morris prosecutor Murphy to join one of state's top law firms. Too tight a focus on WP:NPOL #3, while ignoring WP:NPOL #2 "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." can lead to inappropriate deletions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think both of those are run of the mill. You frequently see stories in local newspapers about relatively important locals changing jobs. Just because the press discusses you doesn't make it significant press coverage. SportingFlyer talk 23:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, there is plentiful SIGCOV, what the 1998 article demonstrates is ONGOING coverage that is INDEPTH and post-campaigns. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that the question "Should local New Jersey political figures have biographical entries?" is one of the topics discussed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Here: The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia’s Editors From Killing Each Other. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above, struck by User:Rusf10, is about an article in the Wall Street Journal on the remarkable intensity of editing on the notability of politicians in New Jersey, and how edit wars are arbitrated. It is not flattering to us as editors. I noticed the article and mention it here because I, too, have found the intensity of editing on New Jersey politicians to be remarkable. We should all be aware of the damage that our petty personal feuding does to the reputation of the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with this article (the reason it was struck) and about the arbitration committee, with a very brief mention New Jersey articles! As usual, you misrepresent articles behind paywalls. Fortunately, I now know how to bypass the WSJ paywall, so I read the article. The request was not "Should local New Jersey political figures have biographical entries?". The WSJ obviously was given bad information.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Keep as per WP:DGFA. This is another "I have the right to nominate articles on New Jersey and nearby states" nomination. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NoteThis edit had a summary said to see talk page, but there is nothing to see on the talk page. Why? Appears the deleted comment to which the above edit refers is the subject of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent violation of Interaction Ban between Rusf10 and Alansohn Djflem (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Daily Record sources (the majority listed) are strictly local. The "Power List" and "New Jersey Law Journal" are casual mentions. The 6/4/97 NYT is somewhere between significant and ROUTINE, but more towards the latter. The 6/6/97 NYT article is the most in-depth and carries weight towards GNG, but I don't see that the guidelines GNG or NPOL have been met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful such a thing might be, but this comment suggests that national- or regional-level coverage of his campaign might better show the suitability of this subject for an article. The Philadelphia Inquirer in a North Jersey section did a very long write-up on Murphy in May 1997 while he was running for governor. Most of the material in that article are in the page already, but I added a few personal and professional details from the article to the page. Here is the reference with links: Ginsberg, Thomas. Dark horse with political background hits the home stretch, The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) 29 May 1997, page B1, B6. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of fraternities at Williams College[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; all sources either only mention it in passing (i.e. not significant coverage) or are directly related to Willams College itself (i.e. not secondary). --Joshualouie711^talk 00:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or potentially redirect, but this seems rather obscure). WP:NOTCASE applies, and since there is no source which seems to treat directly of this subject, the whole article seems to be a nice example of WP:SYNTH, in addition to it being based on on primary sources except for one mention in the NYT, which still fails WP:NEWSBRIEF. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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