Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 22 April 24 April >

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Entrepreneurs Foundation

AfDs for this article:
New Entrepreneurs Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Many refs are own web-site, others are simple directory listings, interviews and press releases. Nothing here is independedent, reliable and speaks to notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Foundation Compositio Mathematica or European Mathematical Society. No policy-based reason to keep has been advanced in the discussion, but it's clear that the content has been judged preservable. ansh666 20:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic Geometry (journal)

Algebraic Geometry (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather see this merged somewhere than deleted. The likely target would be Foundation Compositio Mathematica, however this currently redirects to its flagship journal Compositio Mathematica. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: clearly a legitimate scholarly publication, run and staffed by serious people. It is fully indexed in both MathSciNet and zbMATH, the two major databases for peer-reviewed publications in this field. (And contra the nomination, both are selective, with an editorial process and nontrivial standards for inclusion.) There is a defensible case to be made that most of the academic journal content on Wikipedia should be deleted for being non-notable and difficult or impossible to reference decently, but this particular journal doesn't seem outside the norm in those respects. --JBL (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody has ever claimed that this is not a legitimate journal, but I think most everybody agrees that it is not enough for a journal to be legit to make it notable. As far as I know (but let me ping David Eppstein who knows more about this), MathSciNet and ZbMATH are only selective in the sense that they only include legitimate math journals (that is, they exclude clearly predatory junk journals), but as long as a journal is legit, they cover it. I think we need more to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that is an accurate description of MathSciNet, at least. Probably Zbl is the same but I'm less familiar with it. The other potentially-selective source listed is the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series, and Publishers, but they aim to cover "all academic publication channels worldwide" and the level 1 they assign this journal is their lowest ranking [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is to the best of my knowledge no really eslective indexing service in the field (except for general services like Scopus and Web of Science. I do not consider the Norwegian list reliable,any more than I do other individual country lists for what they cover for the purposes of appointments and tenure and grants. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Scopus is rather inclusive these days (currently indexes 37,956 journals), so if something is not even in Scopus, it's unlikely to be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The scopus inclusion criteria are here -- they describe an editorial process and inclusion criteria basically identical to those of MathSciNet and ZbMATH. The idea that what they are measuring is related to "notability" in the Wikipedia sense is very strange. (I understand that this comment is really about the terribleness of NJOURNALS, not the article under consideration here.) --JBL (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue that listing in Scopus alone is not enough for notability, I would actually agree with you (although up till now, mine is a minority view at the journals WikiProject). In any case, if something can't even make it into Scopus, it's really not notable in my book. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear evidence that the journal is not in Scopus; there is no evidence at all that it "can't make it in to Scopus". (Obviously, it satisfies their listed inclusion criteria -- more likely, no one has bothered to try [quite possible: mathematicians don't rely on Scopus because we have two subject-specific databases] or they have a slow review process or both.)
If you start an RfC or whatever about revising NJOURNALS I will happily contribute my thoughts, but some of your colleagues in the WikiProject are deeply unpleasant and I have no interest in making myself the central target of that unpleasantness. --JBL (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I neither have the time nor the inclination to start such an RfC. This is becoming a bit tangential, but I think such an exercise would be fruitless. It would just re-hash previous discussions (see NJournals talk page) with some editors maintaining that any academic journal should have an article and other insisting that every journal article should meet GNG. NJournals is, I think, a workable compromise, even though it remains very difficult to find enough "delete" !votes each time I bring an article to AfD because it doesn't meet NJournals. As far as I am concerned, if something doesn't even meet that essay, then it really, really, really is not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment All that a listing in DOAJ shows is that a journal exists and probably is not predatory. Apart from that, this is not a database that is selective in the sense of NJournals. (And neither is it an in-depth coverage in the sense of WP:GNG) --Randykitty (talk) 04:57, 23 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) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the proposed merges are very reasonable. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 23 April 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. Most common reason given was that this duplicates List of Toyota vehicles -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Toyota vehicles in the United States

List of current Toyota vehicles in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, perenially out of date, bare bones of a list. Some of the information (fuel economy) is meaningless marketing fluff when applied to models that have yet to hit the road. If this list were fleshed out, it would only contain a copy of information already in List of Toyota vehicles. Moreover, as much as the US is a major market for Toyota, I think "List of X vehicles in Y" type articles are too granular with too much overlap in content to be useful and tenable. Daß Wölf 18:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 19:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- First of all, nom gives no actual reasons for deletion per policy. Furthermore, this should be kept per WP:LISTN, which tells us that "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." That is so clearly the case with Toyota vehicles. The world is full of RS that talk about Toyota vehicles as a group or set. Also, contra Ajf773, this is not OR at all. I would appreciate an explanation of why in the world anyone would think this is OR when obviously for any given Toyota vehicle there are myriad independent RS stating that it's a Toyota. Furthermore, even more evidence that this list satisfies LISTN can be adduced from the myriad entries in Category:Lists of automobiles. It seems that nom ought to start an RfC about the general notability of such lists rather than trying to pick off special cases without valid reasoning. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all WP:V is a reason. The creator has provided no sources except the generic Toyota website as an external link so none of the content has been verified by cited references. Secondly WP:LISTN given there are no other articles in existence that categorises any list of vehicles as ones currently available in any market (we are also not a product catalogue) so this is a non notable cross categorisation. Thirdly there is no clear inclusion criteria so in my view it's just an arbitrary list of vehicles and vehicle stats and in my opinion is deemed original research. Ajf773 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V is a reason for deletion if you can establish that there's no verifiable coverage in RS, but you didn't make that argument in your nomination. Even if you had, it would be unsupportable because there is tons of verifiable coverage in RS. Next, WP:LISTN would be a reason if you made an argument that this grouping wasn't discussed as a group in RS, but (a) it is discussed, and (b) your claim that there are no other lists like this one is not germane to a LISTN argument anyway. Finally, there is a clear-cut inclusion criterion. If the car is a Toyota and it's current then it goes in. Otherwise not. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't my nomination but the nominator clearly mentions that the article lacks reliable sources, is an untenable list WP:LISTN is plus it also tries to recatergorise an existing article List of Toyota vehicles, albeit poorly. That is explained without the need to point directly to policies or guidelines. Ajf773 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to start a RfC about the general notability of such lists, because there are no other such lists. But to entertain this argument, consider that LISTN says that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ..." (emphasis in source). Perhaps one could find various US car magazine articles discussing Toyota's current US lineup and cobble together some writing about it. The trouble is, you could well do that for dozens of other countries, and end up with dozens of "List of current Toyota vehicles in X" articles with 90% overlapping content since naturally Toyota sells most of the same models everywhere. (Not even touching the subject of if this gives notability to a list of current vehicles as opposed to a list of all vehicles.) This is why we have WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Daß Wölf 02:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nomination reads like idontlikeit and isn't valid. Leaving that aside, there are no refs but I find it hard to believe they don't exist, so i'll vote keep per nexist. Szzuk (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I suppose, technically, the consensus opinion is Weak Keep, but there's no button for that :-) There's some discussion here about renaming or redirecting/merging this, but that discussion can continue on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Federal Government

Removal of the Federal Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A beautiful first article, but I think it is a clear failure of WP:No original research. I proposal a redirect to Federal government of the United States, leaving open the possibility of a selective merge from the history. If it is not worth a section there, or in some other related article, then it is definitely not worth its own page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC) SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - while definitely a poor name, the content is sufficient to remain. I wouldn't back either the suggested rename, redirect or a merging (I feel it has sufficient standalone notability). The section on destruction needs to be reduced (though a summary still would have worth). Some alternate name like "Considered Relocation of Federal Capital from Washington", or similar, could work. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this looks like quite a few mooted alternate names might appear, can I create a combining list here (i.e. a duplicate of any suggested within individual comments/"votes")? Nosebagbear (talk)
  • 1814 Reconstruction of Washington
  • Considered Relocation of Federal Capital from Washington
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Is the article title a commonly used term in US History? If so we should retain the term, possibly adding (United States) or (1814) as a disambiguator. An altrernative would be to merge into Burning of Washington, of which the move of the government was a consequence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems to be a legit discussion of moving the US govt to another location, post the Buring of whasintong in the war of 1812. I think worhty of a page, and interesting, but as people have said, name needs changing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and honors of Chulalongkorn University

Awards and honors of Chulalongkorn University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page, which should more appropriately be titled List of awards and honours received by staff and students of Chulalongkorn University, is not encyclopaedic in nature, nor is it notable as a concept. As far as I know we don't maintain such lists for any other organisation. Paul_012 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:47, 24 April 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 all. Despite the bluster, there's no policy-based reason presented to preserve the poorly-sourced content. ansh666 20:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cowled Wizards

Cowled Wizards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since the page has been redirected and reversed before, I am nominating it for deletion. It is non-notable fictioncruft that fails WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related fictional organizations because they are similarly crufty and non-notable:

Shadow Thieves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cult of the Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harpers (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Kraken (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moonstars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red Wizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zhentarim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Forgotten Realms organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 12:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of Forgotten Realms organizations. Merge and redirect others to that. Obvious solution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bunch of non notable cruft merged into a list would still be non notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you could say that for every single other article detailing fictional elements, of which we have many thousands (e.g. an article on every single superhero or supervillain who has ever appeared in a comic). The simple fact is that we keep stuff like this and there is massive precedent for doing so (so no, WP:OSE doesn't apply here, before you try teaching me to suck eggs). No, we probably don't need a separate article on every one, but as a list it's no problem. Remember, this is one of the most popular settings for one of the world's best-known games; it is as notable as "in-universe" articles about superheroes, computer games, Star Trek, Star Wars or Middle-Earth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've had a number of far more notable fictional element articles removed for being not notable. Just because there is little oversight in that section of the encyclopedia doesn't make them notable. This is indeed an example of WP:OSE, not sure why you think it isn't.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's an example of clear precedent, which is an entirely different thing. You may think the articles you've had removed are "far more notable"; others may disagree. And as I said, I don't think each separate organisation should have a separate article, but I see no problem with merging them into a list. I see absolutely no value to Wikipedia in deleting information on a topic that many have an interest in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; do not merge. Only in-universe, primary-sourced fancruft, violates WP:NOTPLOT, fails WP:GNG for lack of third-party coverage. Merging crap together does not make it any less crap. Sandstein 08:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure which part of WP:NOTPLOT you think covers this. Not sure why you think there's no third-party coverage (the Forgotten Realms have been written about endlessly by many, many authors on many, many platforms). Not sure why you think fictional elements are crap (clearly you think a large part of Wikipedia should be deleted if you do; but Wikipedia is written for everyone, with a vast range of interests). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:00, 27 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) 20:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per Necrothesp, merge into List of Forgotten Realms organizations. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- all of these articles are poorly sourced fancruft. For a merge to be feasible, there'd have to be some content worth preserving and I'm not seeing any. Reyk YO! 05:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Per User:Sandstein's very accurate rationale. Could find no notability in any of the titles especially with those that have zero, one, or two "related" or COI sources. I see a !votes to redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters, List of Forgotten Realms organizations and some attempted WIKILAWYERING. Also as an addition to Sandstein's comments, mixing two piles of crap together does only makes a bigger pile of crap. For the record: I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in either 1974 or 1975 with my brother, stopped, and then bought in big time to AD&D 2nd Edition including hard-cover books, dice chest, several bags and cups, and several special dice sets in about 1978, so please do not even consider that I have something against role-playing games. I sure wish I had this stuff now. Notability to individual parts or sections of a game still must adhere to policies and guidelines. One primary source (the second reference is just to Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn) does not pass any form of notability and certainly does look like "fan" or "list" "cruff". Suggestions to merge to the woefully under sourced list-class article List of Forgotten Realms characters is unbelievable. That "article", masked under a list-class (it is not list-class), shows 177 kB (30973 words) "readable prose". It is suggested articles 60 kb or over be split and 100kb "Almost certainly should be divided". I am thinking 177kb of readable prose might qualify to take out "almost". In other words this is far too big to merge to and already tagged in-universe style since 2015. List of Forgotten Realms organizations has zero sourcing so merging here would most certainly be the "double stacked non-notability crap". Since none of those articles can ever apparently be "fixed" why would we want to merge to either? I looked at this thinking "why the hell would we not want this on Wikipdia". To agree to keep or merge I would have to try to find justification that it improves Wikipedia enough to ignore all the rules. Arguments that "Many thousands" of other articles exists like this, or wanting inclusion because this other stuff is notable, is not a real good wikilawyer stance at an AFD. Wikipedia might be under attack by editors that may not actually care about the encyclopedia but their own agenda or at least their own agenda at all costs. Creating articles without WP:notability, reliable sourcing, and fully against "what Wikipedia is not", --- and last-but-not-least articles written from an in-universe perspective, may have simply existed by silence far too long and may be possible attemps (meant or not) at changing the "rules" by proxy. We have these in-universe real life looking "biographies" that all need to be deleted or (fictional character) added to them all. This non-notable un-and under-sourced "crap" causes Wikipedia to lower any standards and does not add anything to the encyclopedia. If it can't be properly sourced it belongs somewhere else in the universe. Otr500 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added observation: If "so many people" have interests in this (outside of Wikipedia fans) then it would be not need to be "clear precedent setting" attempts to "change the rules" but would be covered by sourcing. Come on! When there is a lack of sources we can't have neutrality (one of the five pillars) because original research and synthesis "will", by accident or not, find its way into articles. The point of notability is that it has attracted enough attention as to be notable per reliable sources according to policies and guidelines that includes Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). We do not need an added Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) but need to remember that "consensus by silence" ends when the silence is broken. Local or project consensus has been shown time and again not to take precedence over the more broad community consensus. Otr500 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Roberto Trujillo

J. Roberto Trujillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic who does not appear to meet notability guidelines of WP:ACADEMIC. After a thorough review last year concentrating on actual reliable sources, there seems to be very little of note here. Shritwod (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Good nomination, this needs to be discussed. I stubbed this article last year after this discussion; it had been listed at WP:CP because of copyright concerns which I was not able to verify, but clearly had other problems which needed to be dealt with. My opinion then was that this person was notable under WP:PROF by virtue of his citations/h-index. I've stopped using Chrome so no longer have the plug-in that calculates the h-index for me, and anyway don't have a good understanding of how that index varies by discipline; I'd appreciate some input on this from someone with more expertise. He has also received a fairly important honour from his national government; can anyone clarify how just significant the Ohtli Award is? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:49, 15 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) 20:56, 23 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Gibbs

Timothy Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not proven. IMDB is not a reliable source. Makro (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:38, 15 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) 20:50, 23 April 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. Seems like the argument that the sources are inadequate carries the day. I shall note that "notability is not temporary" does mean "temporary notability is still notability", not the opposite, per WP:NTEMP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Pringle (activist)

AfDs for this article:
David Pringle (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this to AFD a third time. The article was previously deleted in December, promptly recreated and brought to AfD again two months ago. The last AfD resulted in "no consensus". The arguments for keep in the last AfD were based on his coverage as a congressional candidate. He has since dropped out. Of course notability is not temporary which is why the article should not have been retained at that time. As a unsucessful congressional candidate, he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and he does not otherwise meet notability requirement for his activism since it was barely covered before his congressional run. All the sources that are actually about him were published during his brief run for congress. Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those article just quote him, they are not significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the nominator going to respond to points made and the questions raised?Djflem (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He clearly fails WP:politician, and the most "well-cited" part of this page is about his political activity. In fact 90% of this page is about his failed political campaign. Since he already fails politician I'm treating those 2 sections as against our rules... I can't see the page standing on what's left. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 17,840 bytes with more in-depth coverage of campaign and 16,186 bytes with the appropriate mention. What 90%, which two section?Djflem (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, the references determine notability, not the position someone holds. WP:Politician is for people who fail the GNG guideline but their position provides inherent notability, despite minimal references. --RAN (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, NPOL is not "for people who fail the GNG guideline but their position provides inherent notability despite minimal references" — every NPOL-passing politician always also passes GNG, because politicians who hold NPOL-passing roles are a thing the media regularly covers. The issue with NPOL-passing roles is not that a GNG-passing volume of coverage fails to exist for NPOL-passing politicians, but that (a) Wikipedia editors don't always put in the amount of work needed to actually find and cite it, thus causing some of their articles to appear less GNG-passing than they really are, and (b) before NPOL existed, people used to try to list even well-sourced federal legislators (sitting British and Canadian and Australian MPs, US congresscritters, etc.) for deletion on the questionable grounds that they were purportedly lacking evidence of being more remarkable and distinguished than their other colleagues in the same legislature (such as being internationally famous beyond the borders of their own country alone, or being an actual cabinet minister and not "just" a backbencher.) Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination makes the false claim: The arguments for keep in the last AfD were based on his coverage as a congressional candidate.. The mischaracterisation and misrepresentation can be seen below by viewing the keep comments:

Extended content
    • Keep While he is running for a public office, that is only part of the article. He has worked as an environmental activist for many years, as is well-documented.Djflem (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article was initially nominated for deletion in December because, while his activism was robust, his campaign was new and had limited coverage. Since then he's seen a lot of independent coverage, including in Politico, The Observer, and many NJ papers. That combined with his large public record of activism should qualify this page as sufficiently noteworthy. If his page is too promotional, it can be edited to remove that. Lebanonman19 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as indicated above by DJflem and Lebanonman19, and as seen in the article, there are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources with in-depth coverage about him to meet the general notability criteria. Kudos on the expanded article with ample sourcing; any claimed issues re promotional content are poor excuses for deletion and excellent arguments for discussing and editing the article. Alansohn (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep per Djflem. The subject is notable because it is not a 1E article about his congressional campaign but rather focuses more on his environmental activism. Also, articles should only be deleted if they're beyond any hope of improvement; this is very far from the case here. The delete !voters have very weak arguments as seen above. Davey2116 (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Djflem (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As shown above and in article it is not based on his congressional run and there is significant coverage.Djflem (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep based on the sources, not the job title. You can be a homeless person and still have an article. --RAN (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you only get one vote--Rusf10 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The referencing here is not demonstrating a strong case that he's notable for being a candidate per se, but neither is it adequately demonstrating that he has preexisting notability for other reasons. All of the content about anything outside of the candidacy itself is based on a mix of primary sources, interview clips in which he's the speaker and not the subject being spoken about, and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that are not substantively about him, none of which help to get him over GNG for that work in lieu of not passing NPOL — and the campaign coverage itself is not enough, in either volume or geographic range, to make his candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 21 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) 20:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not finding much of a case that he is notable removed from the context of a candidacy. Once again, the sources provided here to try to convince us otherwise are not actually instances of significant coverage, but rather namechecks, passing mentions, or sources that do not count toward establishing notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:47, 24 April 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 08:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymone Bain

AfDs for this article:
Raymone Bain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been trying to edit and improve this article, but the more I look at it, the more things about it that don't seem to make a case for the subject's notability. I realize the article has been around since 2005, but consider the following: there is a series of claims made in the article that lack any supporting references, including some direct quotes; the only evidence of her receiving the President's Lifetime Achievement Award is on various mirror sites (and even if she DID receive it, the exclusivity of that award is also open to some doubt-- it was probably not handed to her by Obama, though his signature would have been on it); the article makes a number of statements about people she has represented, but as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, these don't count (never mind the lack of sourcing for the claims); the article in Sister2Sister magazine, now defunct and not even hosting a website, is an interview, which is problematic when it is conducted by a low-profile publication like this one; she may very well have represented and come to know Michael Jackson, but again, that doesn't make her notable-- it just makes her his attorney on at least one matter. The previous deletion discussion ended with no consensus. Promotional language issues aside, substantive discussion on her outside of blog pages just appears to be lacking... although discussions about her lawsuit against the Jackson estate might (?) be enough to get her over the line, but ??? A loose noose (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The person has demonstrated GNG based on public and long-term relationship as publicist then manager of Michael Jackson, during and after his death (including litigation case against MJ Estate) with stories in Rolling Stone and Hollywood Reporter. More work needs to be done on the article, including better sourcing of material, but keep and improve for sure. --Simone2049 04:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of his woman being discriminated against. Who are you to say what this woman has done? Where are you located? An illustrious career as her's and she's up for deletion? Then delete everyone else's. Mightypub1 (talk)

Raymone Bain an African American woman. She has represented Michael Jackson as Spokesperson, General Manager, Trustee-MJPubishing Trust, Music Licensing Agent, President and COO of the Michael Jackson Co, and appointed to the Board of Sony/ATV Music Publishing...In addition, has represented, Muhammad Ali, Babyface, Boyz II Men, Steve Harvey, Janet Jackson, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Mike Tyson, Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns, Marion Barry, Jr. and other icons and her page is up for deletion?Mightypub1 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name me another African American woman who has represented such an illustrious group of individuals.Mightypub1 (talk)`

You can't find references: try the NY Post, the Washington Post, the NY Times ("Michael Jackson Names Raymone Bain as General Manager") the LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, Inside Edition, EXTRA... Are you kidding me? Who are you? Mightypub1 (talk)`

Then, you note at the headline of this woman's page that you're considering deleting it? How tacky and unprofessional.Mightypub1 (talk)`

You state that you've tried finding citations? Give me a break.Mightypub1 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know her. I've seen the Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award, the pendant she received and the letter. Someone send me your email address. I will take a picture of it and forwarded it to you.Mightypub1 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, what is a "publicizer?" She is a Media strategist.Mightypub1 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: the NY Times, the NY Post, the LA Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, CBS, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, the Miami Herald, etc.Mightypub1 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I assume Mightypub1 was too upset or exhausted to remember to vote. It would have been helpful if either they or simone2049 had actually produced links to all those refs that apparently exist.

I copy edited this awhile back and removed a fair bit of promotional stuff (and there was lots), and I recall there were a lot more references- theres a note in history saying that someone removed misplaced refs and put them on the talkpage, but that seems to have been overlooked. The New York times and Rolling Stone refs arent much more than a namecheck [5], but, the Washington Post did a big in depth article on her back in 2006 [6] that provides a fair amount of biographical info, and there is another one from Washington Life [7], although it looks like PR fluff. I'm not sure how notable she is though, because theres not much about anything unconnected to the Michael Jackson stage of her career, and the article has had so many PR people all over it,its hard to weed out the rubbish.Curdle (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok voting Keep I cleaned it up, so it looks less like a resume and more like an article, and found some much better sources and added them- Washington Post is back in; theres one from the Telegraph, Billboard, another Washington Post, Rolling Stone and Fox News. - was able to reference a lot of the statements, though there are still a couple that may have to go. I couldn't find anything about the Presidental award anywhere either. However it seems she has done a fair bit of political fundraising/campaigning, over several campaigns including Obama's, so its possible there might be something somewhere. I think theres enough ( especially the Washington Post article) to prove Notabilty. Curdle (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources added since deletion nomination should be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more notable than a pageant queen as she actually did some notable things. Her race/color/gender is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion and should never have been raised by Mightypub1 Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page needs an overhaul in terms of the content and format, but there are plenty of sources to establish notability, I believe. Just needs to be cleaned up a bit. Gargleafg (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Piękniewska

Lena Piękniewska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been tagged for insufficient sources and questionable notability for over a year, and in that time nothing significant has been done to improve it. That is a long time for a BLP. Nothing currently cited in the article even starts to establish notability. I did a Google and Google news search. I found lots of lnks to YouTube and other online videos of her performances. I found some track lists and concert announcements, mostly in Polish. I found one interview, also in polish. I found a number of passing mentions of her. Discogs lists one album and two ;'compilations" with zero commentary and no reviews.BBC Music lists only the album, also with no comments. I did not find any reviews or critical commentary on any site, nor any sustained discussion of her except for the interview. Does not appear to be notable at this time. Does not pass WP:GNG, nor WP:NBIO, nor WP:NMUSIC. Possibly this is WP:TOOSOON, but in any case this is not currently a valid article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fairly extensive coverage in the "News" section. Dedicated articles from Polish websites. Don't know enough to evaluate the sources. If the originator of the article can't take the time to incorporate such sources and explain why dedicated article in these venues confer notability in a Polish context, deletion would be fair. Tapered (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are some interviews with her ([8] [9]), made independently by two journalists. She speaks there about her life, career and current projects. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Several Polish language refs were added—unfortunately none from a reliable source. Nothing new to meet other criteria of WP:NM. Ergo, delete. Tapered (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nothing of the kinds of record sales in Poland necessary for WP:NM. Last CD release 2012. Tapered (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion by people who do not know Polish music scene and Polish language and use google translate to make judgement is a bit troublesome. The references I have added are based on "Gazeta Wyborcza" archive (which publishes "Co Jest Grane" and "Wysokie Obcasy" and local cities editions) a newspaper, which is a bit like the New York Times (toute proportion gardée). The statement above that these are not "reliable sources" is greatly misleading. The fact that she has been interviewed several times by "Gazeta Wyborcza" (and its local editions) by itself points to her notability. The original nomination which states that there is "zero commentary and no reviews" is truly disappointing. She is a member of the most important Polish variety show "Pożar w Burdelu", perhaps equivalent to "Saturday Night Life" (again toute proportion gardée). There are countless articles about "Pożar w Burdelu" in the Polish press and, in particular, her performances commenting on her "nostalgia" voice in this fast pacing show. She is engaged in Polish-Jewish dialog in the last 10-15 years and she has been invited to give concerts in very prestigious events - for example those marking 75th anniversary of uprising in Warsaw Ghetto this year. It is stated above that she sings "mostly in Polish". It is not true: she sings her second album in Hebrew, which is unique for a Polish singer and required her to learn the language. Is the point made by the "deletion nominator" that to be notable on English Wikipedia one has to sing in English? The discussion above misses the point that notability is not the amount of CDs sold but also a truly unique and personal voice which Piękniewska (Bem) indeed has, not only she writes and composes the music, but also engages in social commentaries/topics like feminism or Polish-Jewish relationships in contemporary Poland. It is all now very well document in the references provided. Nobody in the Polish version of the Wikipedia questions her notability. Puncinus (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"This discussion by people who do not know Polish musical scene and Polish language..." Well. Duh. Beginning in that fashion is bad form. Obviously, non-Poles aren't familiar. And to use that opening makes me suspect a snow job. We need to see dedicated articles in reliable sources. You've loaded the page with all sorts of references. I haven't seen anything that connects them to the reliable source you mentioned. That many references and tying them to the reputable source (which readers are expected to take your word for) looks like an attempt to use large quanities of information to divert attention away from a lack of reliable sources and notability. Delete recommendation is now stronger. And...duh..I just did my homework, to discover that you are the originator and dominant editor of the article. Tapered (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than amend my somewhat intemperate remarks, I'll add some more. You're using emotional, cultural, and artistic arguments that have nothing to do with inclusion in Wikiipedia English. Wikipedia is not about virtue—the world is full of virtuous people noT included here. And Wikipedia is full of notable scoundrels. The rules dictate that Adolf Hitler is notable. And record sales are indeed a keY point for inclusion/exclusion according to WP:NM. Ms Pieknewska is almost certainly a worthy artist and person. That doesn't confer notability at Wikipedia. Tapered (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PPS A search of Gazaeta Syborcza yielded no hits for Ms. Pieknewska. I rest my case. Tapered (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not "Gazeta Syborcza" but "Gazeta Wyborcza". You need to go to its archives (it is not free - the same way as the New York Times archives are not free); this is probably why you can not see the source. You can not check notability by googling. I wrote above that "Co jest grane", "Wysokie Obcasy", "Gazeta Łódż", "Gazeta Poznań", i.e. the sources which document Ms Lena Piękniewska article, are all attributed to Gazeta Wyborcza which is one of the most reliable news sources in Poland. But the other sources are also reliable. The same way as the New Your Times is publishing "Sunday Review", "Book Review", "Times Magazine" or "Style Magazine", Gazeta Wyborcza publishes "Co jest grane" which is a section describing cultural events in Poland together with reviews, criticism etc. They also publish "Wysokie Obcasy" which is well regarded weekly for woman (I reference them). The fact that she was interviewed several times by these reliable sources, that many independent music and theater critics write about her in a positive way, that she is performing in distinguished theaters in Poland, that she is a composer and lyricists makes her notable. The fact that I wrote this article doesn't make it less reliable, as you seem to imply - I am in no way associated with her. Puncinus (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you saw fit to jump left, I will also. And thanks for the help with my errant typing—part concentration, part chronic discomfort. I used the search line of Gazeta Wyborcza to search for hits. There were none. "You can not check notability by googling"—on which planet? Not by google alone, certainly, but a google search is the beginning of any research for anyone with a computer. And the template for this page includes links to google to check for—notability. People not familiar with Poland's cultural scene and language have no way to verify the reliability of any of the reference websites you've added to the article. The fact that you wrote and are defending this article does indeed make you a likely biased commenter, and for anyone reading this who doesn't take that into account—I have oceanfront property in Arizona for them. (see US map). Tapered (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am referencing reliable newspaper sources from one of the most important/influential newspaper in Poland (and other reliable newspapers). You can go to the "archiwum" of Gazeta Wyborcza here http://www.archiwum.wyborcza.pl/Archiwum/0,0.html or http://classic.wyborcza.pl/archiwumGW/0,0.html and search Lena Piękniewska (use ę in her name). You will find many articles/announcements/interviews about her - some of them I sourced, not all. To get full access to the archive you need to pay small amount ($15). If you do not have inclination to do so (which I understand), you can get Gazeta Wyborcza article from an interlibrary loan. The same way the New York Times articles are available through paid subscription but they are considered good sources. Puncinus (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • please note that all resources are in Polish. There are no English-language resources to back-up this article. Notability criteria might be met as for Polish language Wikipedia, but for English is not verifiable by a non-Polish speaker. And as such I think it should be deleted and wait until there are English-language sources. Or at least some. Lantuszka (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, bordering on weak keep. But I think there should be a community discussion (if there wasn't already one), or at least clarification, on whether notability requires that at least some sources be in English. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:15, 23 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) 20:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @ Lantuszka & 198.84.253.202. You'll note that Google translation exists. It's not perfect, but it suffices for non-technical articles such as this one. The translations show that the subject receives significant coverage in substantial, reliable sources in the Polish media, meeting the first criterion of WP:NM. Tapered (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject has been a well-known and considerably publicized performer in Poland for over a decade and has more than sufficient notability to easily pass the threshold of Wikipedia article retention.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 April 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. MT TrainTalk 02:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soumodeep Ghosh Chowdhury

AfDs for this article:
Soumodeep Ghosh Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. The only reliable source about him in the references is this very brief blurb in Times of India. I couldn't find any better references on Google. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was moved to Draft:Pension reform in Pennsylvania; I have also locked the mainspace title for a month to cool off future efforts to revisit this. bd2412 T 16:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pension reform in Pennsylvania

AfDs for this article:
Pension reform in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School project poorly sourced, with original research, was supposed to be worked on in draft format when it was discussed at WP:AFD Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for it be returned to draft it certainly isn't anywhere near ready for article space. Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have performed the history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In its current form, this fails NOR and V and is not encyclopedic in tone. If the author is interested in developing the article further, returning to draft space would be fine. But The Mighty Glen's guess about a project deadline implies that the article might be abandoned, so without a statement of interest in development, I don't think userfication or draftification is useful. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to draft (again). I don't want to speculate about the motives behind the editors on this ((WP:AGF and all)) but otherwise agree this article is not ready to be out of draft space. As part of NPP I have stumbled across some others on parallel topics from this class and are currently going through them. It's possible for an encyclopedia article to be made on this topic, this just isn't it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. This is a notable topic, the sources are there, it just needs a LOT of work at this point. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. I would want to have it kept, but a topic like that should have more references first. It has a lot of content, and I also don't think it is necessary to delete what probably took the editor hours to write-up. Moving it to draft space would give the editor the ability to edit the article further. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft space, with the hope that creator will build the article. If he does, he will earn out thanks for doing the hard work necessary to create a solid article on a significant political topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 30 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Designing Digitally

Designing Digitally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. There was previously an ad on upwork where the company was looking for someone to create a page, so this was presumably created for pay. SmartSE (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I opened half of the refs and they follow a pattern of trivial mentions attempting to synthesise notability, it is tagged with paid and looks paid/coi. It's just a small company failing gng and looking to advertise its wares here, no prejudice against recreation with RS. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as seriously failing WP:NCORP. I spot-checked a few of the references that looked the most promising from their titles, and in all cases found just some name-drops. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 1 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephe Koontz

Stephe Koontz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a smalltown municipal councillor, whose only claim to being more notable than the norm is that she was the first transgender person to win a contested election in her own state (but not the first transgender person to hold office at all in her state, because she was preceded by a trans woman who won a seat by running unopposed, and not the first transgender city councillor in the United States either.) Holders of not inherently notable offices are not handed an inclusion freebie just because they happen to be members of politically underrepresented groups, however -- if this had made her the first transgender officeholder in the entire country, then there would be a clear case for inclusion, but we do not split hairs like "first person to win a contested election rather than running unopposed", or "first city councillor in her own state as opposed to other states", to keep spinning off an endless profusion of more "historic firsts" beyond the big one. And the sourcing here isn't demonstrating that she got widespread press attention for this, either: there's a single piece of in-state coverage, and one source which verifies a tangential fact about the predecessor who won by running unopposed and is thus entirely orthogonal to establishing Koontz's notability. This is not even close to enough sourcing to make a smalltown municipal councillor notable regardless of her gender identity. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: The sources I noted in my original nomination statement have been completely replaced with new ones — however, three of the new sources represent mere blurbs in listicles, two are glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that are not otherwise about her, and the last is a blurb on the organizational blog of a political advocacy group. So they still do not represent substantive sources about her for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I actually reviewed this as part of NPP. Although politicians do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia based on a win, they do with significant coverage which I found plenty of (including this CNN feature). However, it does appear that someone with a COI (potential autobio) is editing the article which I left a message for on their talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Koontz received a fair amount of coverage nationally, as CNMall41 says. It does look like she may be adding some to her own page, and some of them are more helpful than others -- but the coverage was real and tended to refer to her win as "historic". Litlnemo (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Stephe Koontz lives in my city, so I've explained to her some things such as "don't edit your own wikipedia page" and "your photos have to have the correct license," etc. She is unfamiliar with how wikipedia works and is definitely finding the interface to be overwhelming (and can you blame her?) Litlnemo (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Making a distinction between someone who is and is not “out” is not splitting hairs in this circumstance. That distinction was also made with regard to two athletes in this year‘s winter Olympics. It is worth putting into perspective that the person who was elected unopposed was sued for fraud because it became known that she was transgender. She subsequently lost her reelection campaign. That lawsuit received coverage in the New York Times. She probably also should have a Wikipedia page. This all goes to emphasize the “Historic” Nature of her election. Theredproject (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Koontz is the first openly transgender person to win an election in Georgia. Michelle Bruce was not out when she was a city council person and was subsequently sued because of it. The distinction of being out versus not out is one that is used often and is not splitting hairs. She received national media attention for her win and it was always referred to as historic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekalbzombie (talk • contribs)
Keep Wpgbrown (talk) 10:22, 24 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Martinelli

Patricia Martinelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable actress, a few barely-documented bit parts in film and TV; nor does her activity as a painter come anywhere near our criteria of notability in that field. This seems to be part of an exercise in promotion by Paulmil of Jeremy Henderson, whose notability is also questionable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:01, 23 April 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. Closing as delete, as notability has not been demonstrated. Inclusion in published lists, local "best of" publications has not been shown to indicate notability. No position of eminence is demonstrated, GNG or not. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Stone

Noah Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an investor, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. The references here are almost entirely primary sources, such as press releases from his own companies and Facebook posts and tweets and Eventbrite or Meetup listings -- and the only reference that's actually to a reliable source at all is not to coverage about him, but to an article in which he's briefly quoted as a giver of soundbite about something other than himself. All of which means that exactly none of the sources here are notability-supporting ones at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear GNG on proper notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This individual meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He has been mentioned in a credible, non-primary source (Quinn's Quill Magazine), as being listed on the magazine's 'Top Investors to Watch in 2018.' His being named San Francisco's '2017 San Francisco Young Investor of the Year' is confirmed by multiple sources (http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3413459, http://www.latestnewsfinance.com/story/133900/noah-d-stone-named-2017-san-francisco-young-investor-of-the-year.html). His being named the sole recipient of the city of San Francisco's 'Investor of the Year' classifies as notable under Wikipedia's notability policy. The articles were NOT written by "his companies," as BearCat has stated. The author can clearly be identified at the bottom of the articles. The supplemental notability confirmations are links proving his speakership at events throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Additionally, there exists a CrunchBase (open source page where people create pages of notable investors) dedicated to this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernonwith7767 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content sites like CrunchBase are not reliable or notability-supporting sources for Wikipedia content; press releases from his own companies and/or public relations agent and/or directly affiliated organizations on DigitalJournal or LatestNewsFinance are not reliable or notability-supporting sources for Wikipedia content; and Quinn's Quill is a Blogspot blog, not a reliable or notability-supporting source for Wikipedia content. And every award that exists at all does not immediately hand its winner an automatic "notable because he won an award", either: the extent to which an award counts as a notability claim is entirely coterminous with the extent to which real media — major market daily newspapers, etc. — report the granting of that award as news, but no such sourcing is being shown here. I was and still am 100 per cent correct in my evaluation of the "sources" that have been cited in this article, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


It seems to me that he is a notable person. He was investor of the year for one of the largest cities in the country, San Francisco. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywiththe8 (talk • contribs)

You're missing that notability is not a question of what a person did; it's a question of how much reliable source coverage in real media they did or didn't receive for doing what they did. A person could be notable for winning a tiddlywinks competition if they somehow get enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG for it, and a president of the United States could be not notable if they somehow managed to hold the role without getting media coverage for it. The amount of media coverage that can or can't be cited to support the article is what determines whether a person is notable or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. There are multiple articles that stand on Wikipedia with one source stating their net worth, or a featured article in a business magazine such as Forbes. This is starting to feel like you have had a personal issue with the person in question. Your bias should not be part of your editing here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywiththe8 (talk • contribs)

Above has a point. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathis_Cabiallavetta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifist411life41141133 (talk • contribs)

I believe Noah Stone does meet the notability guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. As someone living in the bay area, his prominence is well known. And I think all the links prove this. I've been looking for more links and found one of him on MIT's website. He is now judging at MIT for their innovation challenge. Regardless, here is my two cents for this page! Thanks everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siliconvalleyguru007 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Crenshaw

Mic Crenshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mic Crenshaw's contributions to local, national, and international contributions to musical platforms have been documented by a variety of journalists and scholars. Please see additional sources and information added to the Mic Crenshaw page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NellaDovenge (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would say it meets WP:MUSICBIO, as it meets criterion 1 due to at least 2 'independent', 'not self-published' and I would consider 'reliable'. I would say that it meets 'reliable' as the newspapers have wikipedia articles about them and it does not mention they are un-reliable. I would say that they however are not subject to the first exception, even though both of citations I chose were 'Q and A' newspaper articles, as I could see no evidence of endorsement or advertising in them. I would also say that the other citations might meet the requirements for the first criterion.
However I would still say the line between this meeting or not meeting WP:MUSICBIO is thin and so this article would need improving before it could be considered 'good enough' and improvment in tone to meet WP:NOTFACEBOOK and WP:NOTLINKEDIN is needed. Wpgbrown (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:59, 23 April 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 13:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cooke

Tim Cooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. Two of the three footnotes here are the publication details of his own writings, not reliable source coverage by other people, and the third is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else. None of these are notability-supporting sources, however — a writer is not demonstrated as notable by metareferencing the existence of his work to itself, but by referencing the existence of his work to media coverage about his work in sources other than itself. And his notability claim as a musician is that he's "thought to have been" in a band, not that he was verifiably in a band for sure — but notability is conferred on the basis of what a person has verifiably done, not on the basis of what they might maybe have done but nobody can actually verify that for sure. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve the page with further links and references --BiBouy (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed. What you added is more primary sources and WP:SPIP, and there's still not a single reliable or notability-supporting reference present at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe the most salient claim to notability Cooke has is that his book was adapted into a 2003 film. Even the film references just list him as the author of the source material (i.e. no depth). In fact, most sources about his work don't mention him much. Mentions of Cooke in almost any other source are passing at best. Doesn't meet WP:GNG.Gargleafg (talk) 23:09, 30 April 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 13:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stars for Autism

Stars for Autism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-profit organization that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It is local so likely not going to see much press outside of that. The article is also promotional in tone which can be fixed, but I don't see this passing WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:11, 23 April 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. The extremely low bar of WP:GEOLAND seems to be met. ansh666 21:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gikigie

Gikigie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsourced geo-stub. I have found references about a Gikigie River in this area, but nothing other than non-Kenya-based weather sites about a town here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 03:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:50, 23 April 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 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bidyapati Dahal

Bidyapati Dahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per this news story in a English language local newspaper, the subject is "a national award winning retired Sanskrit scholar and a author." The news story further says "Bidyapati Dahal is a renowned author in Sanskrit and Nepali. His books are included in courses of universities across the country." But as far I can see none of his books is notable. Some of his work is WP:TEXTBOOKS so basically fails to meet WP:NBOOK.

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails GNG as well.. I was expecting a corresponding bio in Nepali WP but there is none as far I can see. Therefore I can't see any significance here. Saqib (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:12, 23 April 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. ansh666 21:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Sharma Menon

Preeti Sharma Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spokesperson of a major Indian political party so obviously mentions in the press is expected, but I would consider it WP:ROUTINE. I am unable to locate significant in-depth coverage in independent RS on the subject which discusses Menon directly and in-detail. Therefore to me the subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines in particularly WP:POLITICIAN (since Menon never elected to national or even state level parliament).

For what it's worth, the bio appears promotional in tone (created by a newbie) and contain a lot of original research and first hand knowledge so I assume there is some COI. --Saqib (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 18:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 18:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 18:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found numerous sources that cover this person, mostly due to her leaving the party and over possible allegations of corruption (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). I believe she does meet WP:POLITICIAN due to the array of coverage on this person during her political career, but I'm failing to find references that provide enough coverage where a full article could be written about this person without the use of original research (a requirement for meeting WP:GNG). I agree that the references are lacking and very poor in the areas of her life and post-political career, which I believe are pieces that one would typically say would be essential to writing a "full article" about this subject, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Hence, I'm just adding this as a comment in order to help others with reaching a determination here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As I said there are plenty news pieces which mention the subject, but I could not locate some specific references which produce any substantial information about Menon or which I believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. perhaps Wikipedia:TOOSOON? --Saqib (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib and others ,

I believe your political understanding is very low, just because she doesn't contested election or became MLA / MP doesn't mean she is not notable person.

She is quite famous and has taken up many issues which directly connect to mass.

This article deletion seems to be illogical to me.

42.106.193.66 (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep So I took a look at this article. First I found her native name (प्रीति शर्मा मेनन) and added it to the article. After using that as a search term, I was able to find more coverage in her native language. I added several more sources and added more information to the article, and I believe it now just satisfies WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK but In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. --Saqib (talk) 09:14, 27 April 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 Harold M. Weintraub. Sandstein 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harold M. Weintraub Graduate Student Award

Harold M. Weintraub Graduate Student Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable award graduate award no notable recipients. each year there are 13 winners from different schools and sometimes up to 17 winners. the only sources found in a before search were affiliated one from the schools that nominated their students for the award. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AH374

AfDs for this article:
AH374 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find anything stating that this exists. I have additionally asked about this on the OpenStreetMap-talk mailing list and help.osm.org, and have received no response after several weeks. Officially all Asian Highways that are not "extension" routes by regional organizations have one- or two-digit reference numbers. Jc86035 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussion referred to in the first AFD nomination, for what it's worth, only indicates the existence (on paper, anyway) of other three-digit routes, but not AH374 (or AH368). Jc86035 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Can't find any coverage whatsoever in secondary sources you would expect to mention such a thing, such as news outlets or HK government documents. Citobun (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looked at the first nomination, which then referred to talk page. What does ASEAN have to do with an Hong Kong roadway, ASEAN does not include PRC and no nation have a direct access to the entire HK. I am even amazed this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH143 exists which as a Singaporean, I lived up hitherto till now only knowing KPE, MCE, AYE as expressways in Singapore. Never once AH143 appeared in the road siggn of any of these (I travelled these roads very regularly). I will reserve judgement for a person with more judgement (if the Afd is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH143, I will give a delete as per fail notabilty, hey a PDF document and then expand to a whole page without any sources in the host country or even a road sign or what). Since it is for AH374 I will hold as I am not familiar. Noted a fail PROD for AH143 which did not go any further also. --Quek157 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 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 April Fools' Day Request for Comments. Sandstein 13:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTF-9 and UTF-18

UTF-9 and UTF-18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone's April Fools' Day joke; unofficial; nonstandard; no secondary sources. As noted on the talk page, someone also invented a UTF-12, and any number of bits could theoretically be used to encode Unicode characters. Jc86035 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:15, 24 April 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 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Steib

Mike Steib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A horrible promo piece with a nasty case of WP:REFBOMBing. I trawled through them 17 affiliated or subjects own site, 3 press releases, 2 WP:INTERVIEWS, 1 routine mention, 2 passing mention, 2 not mentioned, 1 Forbes article and the rest are duplicates. Fails WP:GNG a jobbing businessman but as it is does not meet notability. This article has already been dratified once Dom from Paris (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:39, 23 April 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. The excellent WP:HEYMANN work from SandyGeorgia and Johnbod makes it clear that this goes far beyond a simple dictionary definition. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke

Bespoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. see WP:NAD. There is already a dictionary entry here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bespoke. There is a template for this: { {db-a5} }. Articles that have been moved to Wictionary should be deleted from Wikipedia. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as creator, from a redirect) Nothing has been "moved to Wictionary" from this page. The article is useful, going well beyond the disam page, although the more detailed info is rightly at the various other specific pages. Astonishingly, immediately after starting this AFD, Senor Cuete removed the history section of the article, with the edit summary: "irrelevant to the subject of the article, the word bespoke. There are separate articles about this"! Admins may be interested. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per this. (I have Johnbod's talk page watchlisted, and could not resist looking at this AFD when it came on my watchlist, since it is inconceivable to me that a Johnbod article would need to be deleted.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks! I can't think of any that have been anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal feelings about USER:Johnbod are irrelevant. This is a discussion of fact. Also the pages that link to this page will link to the Wiktionary page where this belongs. (unsigned) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 02:08, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, Senor Cuete. You can (in fact, should) sign your posts by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. I haven't shared my personal feelings about Johnbod, but I have shared my knowledge of his editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course they won't link to Wiktionary! Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NINE articles in the New York Times, including, examples:
    • Safire, William (9 December 1990). "On Language; Bespokesman". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
    • Farber, Jim (8 August 2016). "Bespoke This, Bespoke That. Enough Already". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  • Its history in tailoring industry: "What does 'bespoke' mean?". BBC News Magazine. 19 June 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  • In marketing and tailoring: Foulkes, Nick (30 January 2009). "Top shelf: The elusive meaning of 'bespoke'". Newsweek. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  • "What 'bespoke' means". Gentlemen's Quarterly. 14 March 2001. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
    Reinforcing my Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further reinforcing my keep, there is a Featured article at Sentence spacing (showing you can turn a dicdef into a broad concept), and a Former featured article at the word, Thou, showing how to turn a word into featured content. There is certainly enough sourcing available to achieve at least a GA about the usage and etymology of the word itself. The idea that a word cannot be an article is disproven by thou. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WORDISSUBJECT notability is well met, with at least seven high quality reliable sources that discuss the word itself as a notable concept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the first sentence. Don't most articles begin with a dictionary definition, where appropriate? Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A tic is a sudden, repetitive, nonrhythmic motor movement or vocalization involving discrete muscle groups. That's a dictionary definition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, tic has a dab page, Tic (disambiguation). And it has a wiktionary entry. Exactly the situation here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wouldn't be right - you mean rename the disam page to this< I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate What is currently at Bespoke (disambiguation) should be at this title (Bespoke simpliciter), as aside from disambiguating different bespoke-things articles this is just an overly-verbose dicdef. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd suggest people read Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, which is what this is: "A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics."
"However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page." Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgiaYour comments are non sequiturs because they fail to address the issues brought up in the original nomination for deletion. Wikipedia is not a democracy or a popularity contest. This discussion will be evaluated based on the merits of the arguments, not any irrelevant comments. Please read the article and the reasons for nomination for deletion, try to comprehend them and address them in your comments. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. see WP:NAD. There is already a dictionary entry here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bespoke. There is a template for this: { {db-a5} }. Articles that have been moved to Wictionary should be deleted from Wikipedia. This article doesn't qualify under the guidelines at WP:WORDISSUBJECT. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Misplaced_dictionary_entries. 

"If Wiktionary doesn't already have an entry for the word or idiom (which is unlikely), it can be copied to Wiktionary using the transwiki system, by marking the article with the { {Copy to Wiktionary} } template. However, after copying, the final disposition of the article here is up to Wikipedia. If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted."

See WP:POINTWIKT to create pointers to Wiktionary. In addition this article fails to meet the criteria at WP:FAILN. It should be tagged with the template { {notability} }. See Google ngrams which gives this word a score of 00006% (.0000006) for use in English. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bespoke&year_start=1970&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbespoke%3B%2Cc0 Senor Cuete (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about Google ngrams. "Bespoke" only currently rates as 0.000003% (.00000003) in American English - much worse that what I posted above. See: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Bespoke&year_start=1900&year_end=2018&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CBespoke%3B%2Cc0 Senor Cuete (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of this Google ngram talk is original research, and I have removed the inappropriate use of it as a source from the article. There are many reliable sources that discuss how much the usage of the word has increased, and why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NAD "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history" Senor Cuete (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat - nothing has been "moved to Wictionary" from this page. The entry there is very different (and inferior). So the premise of the nom is wrong. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and per WP:NAD, Bespoke is a concept. A marketing concept. A branding concept. A linguistic concept. A fashion concept. It also happens to be a word, like thou. Being nice is also a concept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I make no comment on the notability or otherwise of this topic. However, Senor Cuete, you appear to have left messages for several editors (1, 2, 3) to notify them of this AfD, but have selected only those whose opinion on the subject you perceived to be in rough alignment with your own ("This article has been nominated for deletion ... for the reasons you mentioned"). I see no such notification for editors who once expressed the opposing view. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that this could be interpreted as canvassing, so I have taken the liberty of making the required notifications myself, in a neutral manner of course. I believe all potentially-interested parties have now been informed of this discussion. Steve T • C 21:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for BROADCONCEPT, set index or whatever. We have a list of encyclopedic articles beginning "Bespoke ..." and so we need a navigational structure to deal with this. Even if this duplicates a dictionary (and there is some etymology here too), we still need one here, just to be that navigational structure. Any duplication just isn't a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure :) The sources were easily found with a simple Google search, although I did go to Proquest at my library for one of them. I believe you have the five-fold expansion for DYK. I don't do DYK, but would be happy to see you take it there! I do hope the thou example will help demonstrate that we can take articles about words to the GA or FA level. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The text about the history of custom clothing is a red herring. The links added are all to articles about the word so this is just a bigger dictionary definition that still violates WP:NAD and other standards of Wikipedia. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Editors are only allowed to !vote once. A nomination counts as a delete !vote. Septrillion (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Septrillion I have unbolded the delete in your small text above, as that also counted as a double !vote with the stats tool, and put you as a double !vote with a delete :) Without commenting on whether you should strike Senor Cuete's duplicate !vote, I have also unstruck his commentary, as that is apart from the !vote. I hope you don't mind these corrections. The AFD stats are straightened out now, with no duplicates found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Senor Cuete is also the nominator! Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Johnbod is also the article creator! Senor Cuete (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Senor Cuete, you seem confused again about the reason for the post. (Similar to your confusion about why my first post indicated that I came to the AFD because I have Johnbod's talk page watchlisted: you described it as my "personal feelings about Johnbod", when providing that information has to do with giving the closing admin information relative to potential canvassing, which you did, and Johnbod did not.) The AFD nominator vote is assumed. See the stats, which detect Senor Cuete's duplicate vote. Please stop personalizing, and assume AGF if you don't yet understand these processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't canvass. I notified the people who commented on the article's talk page. As far as personalizing this, you are the one that has done it. "I know you are but what am I?" - Peewee Herman. Also only ONE space goes after a period. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Steve pointed out above, you only notified those who had supported your view, and not Andy Dingley, who did not. See Wikipedia:Canvassing "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was Steve who notified me, not Senor Cuete. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andy Dingley, sorry, my mistake. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:03, 25 April 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 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cavagin

Tim Cavagin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:41, 23 April 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 13:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Beuker

Igor Beuker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG this looks very much like an undeclared paid edit. the sources are mostly press releases and associated sources. Including marketingfacts as he was a contibutor [18] the magazine for NIMA This smacks of failing WP:NOTADVERTISING Dom from Paris (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO & significant RS coverage not found. A highly promotional article on an unremarkable business execuity / speaker. Wikipedia is not a speaker's bureau designed to help nn subjects book speaking gigs. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 28 April 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 13:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Kinsella

Michelle Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTRACK. Finished top at the Canadian championships, but does not appear to have "ever been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year" (which is required by NTRACK). Certainly fails GNG, no sources available outside of IAAF profile. Citation listed only mentions her name in reference to discussion of another athlete. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 23 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Muhammad Jaagan Khan Bhayo

Sardar Muhammad Jaagan Khan Bhayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person (WP:NOTINHERITED). No reliable sources to back any information in the article. Article has been repeadetly recreated and title should be WP:SALTed. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here is an "inherent" notability claim that exempts him from having to pass WP:GNG just because he exists, but neither of the two sources here are helping to get him past GNG: one just verifies the existence and death of his father without naming him at all in conjunction with that, and the other just features him giving soundbite to a newspaper about someone other than himself (which is not coverage about him for the purposes of helping to get him over an inclusion criterion.) Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see nothing remotedly notable about this person, and the sourcing is insignificant. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 30 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Rider (Mobile Game)

Highway Rider (Mobile Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks any indication of notability. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non Notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lacking an indication of notability" is not sufficient for deletion. Please ensure you are doing basic WP:BEFORE checks before nominating. The VG/SE does however indicate that this is not notable, because it lacks reliable sources covering the topic in detail. --Izno (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: Sorry, I've been too hasty with the opening of the discussion here. I should have explained that this is a follow-up to the following original PROD nomination: "No notability of game given among many iOS games. No notability found in Google search. PROD rather than CSD in case author can show notability."
    Thank you for the tip too; I should invest more time into these preparation steps, even when I believe that the article author was probably trying to promote an own product. Because even the possibly strongly positively biased statements, of someone who seemingly just registered to create an article about a commercial product, failed to convince me of notability, I decided to put this up for discussion. I had stumbled upon the PROD deletion in Huggle, had a look at the new edits and decided to convert the still-valid nomination of 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco into an AfD. I then notified 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco on their talk page that they might want to re-state their original arguments here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine. It's a clear NN--just be a little more liberal with your words in the nom next time. :) --Izno (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG as set forth in the original PROD, which was copied above.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG failure and is pretty much a carbon copy of the app's description and release notes from the app store. Not our purpose. Nate • (chatter) 14:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, article fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benafsha Soonawalla

Benafsha Soonawalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Article is promotional, contradictory, and severely lacking in reliable sources. Vermont (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll note that I think a WP:HEY could be possible. Vermont (talk) 10:17, 24 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Barrett (actor)

Jeremy Barrett (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable voice actor. Three credits on IMDB, no independant references. Unable to locate any references to this British voice actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Scr★pIronIV 14:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:25, 24 April 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! 19:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ǼLEX

AfDs for this article:
ǼLEX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First AfD closed as "no consensus" after heavy involvement from a likely COI creator. One will note that some of the original "delete" votes were changed to "keep" following the contributions of one editor, but really all that editor had to say was "going by references online, they seem to be a top law firm in Nigeria"--there was no proof of top status. The awards don't appear to be very notable in their own right, and an editor's comment, "Please be informed that the way Nigerian media covers significant organizations is quite different from how it is done elsewhere", that's easily said and we can take their word for it, but that's not how Wikipedia works.

In other words: fails GNG, no evidence that it passes CORP, and the only claim to fame is that they are listed as "leading firm" (whatever that means) by Chambers and Partners--but this shows no evidence whatsoever of any kind of award, ranking, or assessment, and it rather reminds me of the corporate directory entries one finds in Forbes. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my vote is to keep because the firm is noted as only the second Nigerian firm to be awarded with the Who's Who Legal award as cited and reported in a National daily here. It is also cited by here that the firm is ranked by WhosWhoLegal and Legal500, who are renowned as two of the world's largest independent legal referral guides. It does meet WP:GNG / WP:NCORP. Sourcing is not of passing-mention, because there are entire articles in notable National dailies dedicated to the subject matter. The Who's Who Legal 100 Award is similar to Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People of the Year listing in the legal profession, and this can be checked on several sources. Pastorflex (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:25, 14 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) 14:33, 23 April 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 Sources have been provided and deemed to meet notability. FWIW, there's no BLUDGEON going on (or perhaps it's the other way), since the majority of E.M.Gregory's comments have been in response to questions or comments by Rusf10. ansh666 21:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob J. Schacter

Jacob J. Schacter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Very little, if any reliable independent source coverage exists. Rusf10 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." How does he pass that? According to the article, he is just an adjunct professor.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
check out the faculty bio [https://www.yu.edu/cjf/about/senior-staff" "University Professor of Jewish History and Jewish Thought," is a title given to him as a leading scholar who confers prestige on the University by holding a post that requires little regular teaching. Article needs improvement, I suspect that editors from Jewish-related list who are more familiar with his work and career than I will swing by to bring it up to snuff. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a title, it simply means that he is a professor who teaches "Jewish History and Jewish Thought". The fact that he is not even full-time should tell you that his role there is not that important. If it said that he was the chair of the Jewish History Department, that would be different.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes. Just because they capitalized it in the press release does not mean anything. I am not making a "mistake", you are. He is not a distinguished professor.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes. I am with Rusf10, the capitalization does not mean anything. He is not distinguished in the academic world the way most people with that title are. We do not have consensus on his notability.--Jayrav (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Failing to run a WP:BEFORE that would show notability on this individual was a mistake.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rusf10, Jayrav. This is just one of those cases where the page (even in its paltry, poorly sourced condition) appeared to indicate probable notability, and my quick searches seemed to confirm it. Whereas you both had the opposite experience. I am asking you both to consider that I have linked above to three profiles of him in reputable newspapers (And I can add more,) I have added reviews of the book he co-authored with another scholar, and I have pointed out that for two decades he held the pulpit of a major congregation, Jewish Center (Manhattan), leaving it to head up a Orthodox Jewish scholarly institute in Boston. The page continues to be in dire need of improvement, but every time I read your objections and try searching a different way - I find more notability. I am asking that your revisit. This [21] Boston Globe article , for example, comes up in the searchbar above by clicking HighBeam. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not every article that mentions him (like the Globe article) is indepth coverage. And The Forward is not widely circulated. Also, you're not changing anyone's mind here by repeating yourself over and over again, so why don't you read WP:BLUDGEON --Rusf10 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the last time I got a new job, the Boston Globe did not publish a long article about me, my new job, and new Institute that had hired me to head it - the Globe did do so for the new job Schacter got in 2000.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, at 9 comments and counting that's a classic example of WP:BLUDGEON--Rusf10 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is an long-standing article that was poorly sourced when nominated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 19 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) 14:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The sources found during this AfD help the article satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Looking at google books, Schacter is definitely seen as an authoritative writer on Jacob Emden,[22] which seems like a good indicator of his suitability as the subject for an encyclopedia article in his own right as a scholar. His position at the Jewish Center also lends some weight to his suitability. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dyonyx

Dyonyx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable company. MER-C 14:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:38, 23 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Software Lab

Engineering Software Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run-of-the-mill software reseller; no substantial corp history to make this encyclopedic content under WP:NCORP. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted with criterion G4. (non-admin closure) Acebulf (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Post

AfDs for this article:
Lahore Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This newspaper does not appear to meet relevant notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers,_magazines_and_journals. Saqib (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK it turned out this was previously deleted via an AfD so I guess can can be speedy deleted. --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Ullman

AfDs for this article:
Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notable sources to establish notability as defined by WP:AUTHOR. The bulk of the article is made up by the Views and Controversies section which also does not appear to infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. The issue is that we need at least a couple of sources that meet the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. I cannot find a single one. The only one that might arguably meet these three criteria is a piece in the Berkeley Barb, an underground newspaper that might be assessed as having qualified reliability for 60s and 70s counterculture but doesn't cover a current biography. Our standards for sourcing have tightened in the last ten years, we are much more conservative, and this lacks the quality of sources necessary to create a verifiably neutral biography. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please excuse the fact that I have little experience on Wikipedia...and due to a conflict of interest, I have no idea if my "vote" here carries weight. However, it seems obvious that I have significant notability, as per Time magazine and ABC News 20/20, let alone 10 books (two of which contain a Foreword by the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II), their publication in ten languages. I also want to remind people here that my alma mater, UC BERKELEY, published a four-page interview with me, February 1999: https://web.archive.org/web/20040910125954/http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/February_1999/QA_with_Dana_Ullman.asp
Some antagonists to my work and to the field of homeopathic medicine are diligent at work to delete anything related to my work, but they have also ignored the following RS contributions:
--Quoting from this article, "Ullman was arrested for practicing without a license and spent eight hours in jail (where he read Ivan Illich's Medical Nemesis), But he won in court, and his case set a precedent: he was the last person to be arrested in California for practicing "alternative medicine." Also, this article reports that Dana Ullman "co-taught a course on homeopathy at UCSF's medical school for four years."
-- Dana Ullman has written chapters on homeopathic medicine in two important medical textbooks, including one published by Oxford University Press and one published by the American Academy for Pain Management.
----"Integrative Sexual Health, Edited by Barbara Bartlik, Geovanni Espinosa, Janet Mindes, and Series edited by Andrew Weil. Oxford University Press, 2018. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/integrative-sexual-health-9780190225889?lang=en&cc=us#
----"Weiner's Pain Management: A Practical Guide for Clinicians," American Association for Pain Management/CRC Press, 7th edition. 2005. https://www.crcpress.com/Weiners-Pain-Management-A-Practical-Guide-for-Clinicians/Boswell-Cole/p/book/9780849322624
Due to a conflict of interest, I cannot add the above material to the bio for me, and so I am hoping that someone with a neutral POV will consider doing so. DanaUllmanTalk 04:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel also compelled to mention one more significant notability about my work. I was the first person in history to use the word "nanopharmacology" in a publication of a major scientific journal (FASEB, 2006): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17142803 DanaUllmanTalk 04:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In reverse order:
  • You used "nanopharmacology" incorrectly (as our article on homeopathy makes clear, the correct term is non-pharmacology), but nobody cares because that is a primary source, a letter not a peer-reviewed publication, it's your assertion that you coined the term, you provide no independent source to back that claim, and the term is visible in the peer-reviewed literature four years earlier if not before. I can't help feeling that we are at the nub of the matter here: your view of your own achievements is not in line with the objective evidence.
  • The identity of your publishers is irrelevant. What matters is reliable independent sources. Publisher PR blurbs are not independent and absolutely do not establish notability. Adding two more, makes no difference.
  • The interview in an alumni magazine is similarly not independent. It's also not about you, it's about the alternative to medicine that you promote, and it is wholly uncritical - even though homeopathy has been known to be bogus since the 1840s.
What you need is sources that meet the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary, to establish notability. That's what's missing. It doesn't really matter if there are five affiliated sources or seven, if they are affiliated they don't establish notability per WP:GNG. The sources you cite would be acceptable for uncontroversial facts but not for anything that might reasonably be challenged, and very little that you say falls into that category, because your primary activity is, and always has been, the promotion of homeopathy, which is inherently controversial due to its inconsistency with all relevant scientific knowledge. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The ABC News and Time Magazine quotes are essentially claims of notability. I'd almost be more comfortable merging it, but I don't see any reasonable place to merge with. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In considering whether or not it is appropriate to keep a biographical article, I would consider a two-pronged test. The first prong is "notability"—have the subject's actions and accomplishments had a significant impact on the world outside their own circle? Ullman is difficult to evaluate in this regard, if only because it is difficult to determine the correct biographical category and criteria; he's not a proper 'criminal', having reached settlement before trial; he's not a proper 'academic' or 'professor', holding no significant academic appointments(?) and having published little research in scientific (or even unscientific) journals; he's not a proper 'pundit' or other 'celebrity', having participated in only one or two large-market discussions/interviews over the last several decades; he has written some books, but none have been bestsellers. Put all those accumulated dribs and drabs together into a pile and one might make an argument for clearing Wikipedia's "notability" threshold, but it is far from certain.
    The second prong is "sourcing"—we cannot build a Wikipedia article out of what we think might be true. Whether we think an individual is sufficiently notable or not, we cannot write a biography – especially of a living person – without robust sources. After eleven years of development on Wikipedia, we are able to cite a modest number of sources in which Ullman relates his views, but find few (if any) which describe Ullman himself. He's a guy who was interviewed about one side of the homeopathy issue in a couple of news reports; the interviews weren't about Ullman specifically. For Ullman's arrest and subsequent settlement for "practicing medicine without a license" – something that ought to be an important, formative biographical event, however spun – we can't come up with a single WP:BLP-compatible source. That absence of robust independent coverage (contemporaneous or retrospective) means that Dana Ullman fails as a Wikipedia biographical subject on this second prong. (The paucity of coverage also argues against the first prong's 'notability' test.)
    There is also a third issue, regarding how this article was created and is still used. The original biographical article was created by a third party at Dana Ullman's direct request: [23]. Our article is part of establishing Ullman's image, and marketing Ullman's books—note how carefully the bibliography is kept up to date. Ullman has maintained a close and active interest in the article's maintenance ever since it was created. Having a Wikipedia article is part of building Ullman's profile and brand. While these 'outside context' factors aren't dispositive, they certainly should disincline us to giving the benefit of the doubt with respect to notability questions and the preservation of the status quo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is odd and even confusing that TenOfAllTrades would assert that I have "maintained a close and active interest in the article's maintenance ever since it was created" when records show that I did not contribute virtually anything to Wikipedia for a 10-year period...but this editor is well-known for this strong antagonism to me and to homeopathic medicine. This editor also has obviously not read my comments above that include additional notable and well-referenced facts about my work, though I'll show good faith and assume that he may have not read them until after he read this.
As for JzG's assertion that homeopathy is a "non-pharmacology" rather than a "nanopharmacology," he is pretending to be ignorant of an important study published in a major scientific journal, "Langmuir," which is published by the American Chemistry Society. This study conclusively showed that six different homeopathic medicines, made from metals (gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc, and platinum), were diluted 1:100 six times, 30 times, and 200 times, and using three different types of spectroscopy, the scientists consistently found nanoparticles of each of the original metals in solution...and further, the scientists conducting this research provide compelling reasons for how and why this occurs. The study verifies that nanoparticles persist in solution in homeopathic water, and the doses that persist are at a dosage similar to the nanodoses to which the human body's own hormones and cell-signaling agents are known to operate. Reference: Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation. Langmuir. 2012 Nov 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23083226 The additional reference that confirms that nanodoses used by our human body is here: Eskinazi, D., Homeopathy Re-revisited: Is Homeopathy Compatible with Biomedical Observations? Archives in Internal Medicine, 159, Sept 27, 1999:1981-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10510983 The fact that neither of these articles are even mentioned in the article on "homeopathy" is simply further evidence of the anti-homeopathy biases here by extremists who are not interested in a NPOV.
As for my assertion that I was the first person to use the term "nanopharmacology" in a title of a publication in a major scientific journal, that can be seen and verified at PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and doing a search for "nanopharmacology" and looking in reverse order of the listings. DanaUllmanTalk 18:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now there's a moving goal post. Your prior claim in this page was that you were the first person to use the article in a publication, not limiting it to the title. Obviously, a large portion of the text of a typical publication is not in the title. The claim becomes of even less import with limiting it to the title. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, NatGertler, but actually BOTH of my statements are accurate. I was the FIRST to use the word "nanopharmacology" in a TITLE of a publication AND the FIRST to use the term in a "major scientific journal" (the only other publication that used this term was a "pharmacy" journal, not a "scientific" journal. Thanx for reminding me to be more specific. DanaUllmanTalk 21:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but nanopharmacology does not seem to merit an encyclopaedia entry in any case, and although I acknowledge that this term is somewhat related to nanomedicine which does have an entry, it is not nanopharmacology as you describe it. It seems a rather moot and irrelevant argument. Shritwod (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way have I shown "strong atagonism" to you, DanaUllman? After wasting rather more time that I would have liked, I really can't find anything but infrequent, mostly-incidental interaction. There are a handful of threads scattered across the project where we've disagreed with one another about content or sourcing issues. I've never edited Dana Ullman or Talk:Dana Ullman. After going through the entire history of Homeopathy, it looks like I've made fewer than 10 edits to the article, mostly reversions of vandalism and removal of linkspam, none since 2007; I have occasionally commented on the article's talk page (five edits in the last two years). It looks like you sent me an unsolicited email in 2008 inviting me to check out your new book and website; the only time I've ever posted to your user talk page was to ask to you not send me any more spam. (I had completely forgotten about that, truth be told. I still don't remember receiving the email, but it's right there in black and white.)
As to your views on homeopathy, and how they might differ from my own—none of that makes a difference about whether or not you're notable enough – or there are enough independent, reliable sources to be found about you – to justify and support a Wikipedia article. There are lots of people who were wrong but who have had sufficient impact (one way or another) to warrant coverage: Stanley Pons, Prosper-René Blondlot, the Flat Earth Society, heck, even Samuel Hahnemann himself. I just don't think that, in terms of impact and available sources, Dana Ullman rises above the bar. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, your comment he is pretending to be ignorant of an important study published in a major scientific journal, "Langmuir," this is absolutely characteristic of your approach to debate. You assume that anyone who does not share your idiosyncratic and homeopathy-centric view of the world is "ignorant". I am well aware of the Langmuir paper. Chikramane et. al. show ideological bias, sloppy technique, and a fundamental failure to understand their own experiment. Silicates are expected in solutions prepared in glass - ask any electrochemist why they wash glassware in HF - but Chikramane claims that silicates in solutions in glass are evidence for homeopathy, because he is a True Believer looking to support his faith, not to test it. The paper with the heavy metal contamination is [the same thing only sloppier http://inscientioveritas.org/homeopathy-nanoparticle-chikramane/]. It was accepted by a journal because the editors did not realise they were looking at tooth fairy science - Iris Bell has made a career of publishing one study in a journal and then moving on after the editors realise they were hoodwinked. Six years after that paper was published, it has changed nothing. It is not "important", it has had zero effect other than to give homeopathists more dust to throw in the eyes of science in the hope of staving off the inevitable. And that's not working. Since the paper was published the NHS has shut down pretty much all homeopathy due to lack of evidence of effect. The oldest homeopathic hospital in the UK, favoured by Prince Charles, has handed out its last taxpayer-funded sugar pill [24]. Two of the four large scale policy reviews (Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council and the European Academies' Science Advisory Council) post-date Chikramane and had submissions from homeopathists which referenced Chikramane. It did not persuade.
And even if the Langmuir finding were correct, reproducible, and in any way "important", they would still be irrelevant. It would be like using mass spectroscopy to find titanium in a carpet and asserting that this is the mechanism by which carpets fly, because titanium is also used in aircraft. Not only is the Langmuir paper a self-acknowledged "hypothesis" (actually conjecture), it fails to address the fact that there is no objectively demonstrated connection between the substances used in homeopathy and the conditions they purportedly treat.
Unfortunately you are so convinced of your own correctness that you automatically discount every conflicting view as based on bias and ignorance. Ignorance, for you, includes not only lack of knowledge, but also reaching the "wrong" conclusion. You cannot accept that anybody else could look at the same facts and reach a different conclusion. That's why you got banned, and topic banned, and if you continue attacking people here for daring to follow the mainstream conclusions about homeopathy rather than your own preferred interpretation then I confidently predict that you will end up sitebanned again. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, this is not the place to be debating the efficacy of homeopathy. It's irrelevant to the question of whether this page gets deleted. It's rare enough that an extended exchange on a wikipedia deletion page even effects the question of whether the page gets deleted, much less change the world as a whole, so this is just so much kittenfolding. Let's keep the topic on whether the subject meets our standard for inclusion. I expect that in the future, my Wikipedia page will reflect that I was the first person to use kittenfolding in a Wikipedia discussion. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @DanaUllman:@JzG:The purpose of this particular discussion isn't to rehash a lengthy debate whether or not Ullman's views about homeopathy are factually correct, or whether homeopathy itself is a legitimate and scientifically-supported practice, or to argue about the relative merits of various published articles on the topic.
The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not Wikipedia retains the biographical article Dana Ullman. For the purposes of this discussion, it actually doesn't matter if Ullman's beliefs are rational and well-founded. What matters is whether or not he is a sufficiently noteworthy individual, and whether or not there are sufficient reliable and independent sources to support building a complete encyclopedia article.
The only claims by User:DanaUllman (or anyone, really) that need to be discussed – and refuted, if necessary – are the ones relating to whether or not Ullman is a notable figure, and if reliable and independent sources genuinely support those claims. So, for example, his over-inflated claims about being first to use the term nanopharmacology in a scientific journal are fair game for puncturing (though I think that ground is now thoroughly exhausted). His comment about the Langmuir paper is irrelevant to this discussion, as Ullman is not an author of the paper, was not acknowledged in the paper, and was not cited in the paper. Trying to make this AfD discussion about the merits (or not) of homeopathy rather than the merits (or not) of the article on Dana Ullman is a red herring to be avoided.
User:DanaUllman should avoid further sidetracking (especially given his still-extant topic ban on homeopathy), and everyone else should avoid taking the bait. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. Shouldn't rise to the bait, Dana is well aware that I am familiar with the Langmuir study. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I only (!) brought up the study in Langmuir because JzG referred to homeopathy as "non-pharmacology" rather than "nanopharmacology," and this study provided strong evidence for the persistent of nanoparticles of the original source material in homeopathic medicines. There was a certain logic to this reference, especially in light of the increasing emergence of nanomedicine and nanopharmacology. DanaUllmanTalk 17:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I mentioned it only because your error, which you repeat above, required correction. But as ToAT says, we should not encourage you to further violate your topic ban. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG has chosen to write a totally inappropriate critique of the Langmuir study without referencing a single independent or PUBLISHED analysis of this Langmuir study! All of the comments that JzG has chosen to make are his own and do not represent any reliable source of information (if he had such a source, I'm sure that he would have provided it...but he did not). The researchers in this Langmuir study KNEW that silicates fall off the glass walls...and this is NOT the point of their study. The fact of the matter is that the researchers found that ALL six metals were forced into the silicates and three different types of spectroscopy found nanoparticles of these 6 metals even after dilutions of 1:100 thirty times and 200 times because these silicate fragments cling to the glass walls during the dilutions. Therefore, Avogadro's number has NO real meaning in any making of a homeopathic medicine because this important determination doesn't account for the silicate fragments or the vigorous shaking/turbulence. I feel compelled to respond to this misinformation that [User:JzG] provided and that he walled off as "irrelevant." Because I was not able to add this comment to the walled off material, I am inserting it here. DanaUllmanTalk 01:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana, please give it a rest. This really isn't relevant. What matters here is whether you meet notability criteria on Wikipedia. The correctness of not of any idea about homeopathy is irrelevant to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I'm a little on the fence here. There are two major publications that mention Ullman (ABC News, and Time Magazine), as well as a brief mention in a journal editorial. However, none of those sources appear to dedicate "significant" coverage to Ullman or his work - he's being used as an example of a homeopath or a source for pull-quotes in articles that are really about homeopathy more generally. It's true that these sources mention Ullman as a significant figure in the field, but that probably isn't enough either: Joel Waul, the current holder of the world record for the largest rubber band ball is prominent in the field of large rubber band balls, but there probably isn't much sense in having an entry dedicated to his biography. Nblund talk 22:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Per the extremely persuasive arguments by TenofTrades.~ Winged BladesGodric 01:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very little to give the subject notability in the wiki sense except his homeopathic trolling, which isn't really covered by reliable sources. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From looking for sources which might establish notability one way or another (which I had assumed would be straightforward) most of the results are articles by the subject himself promoting opinions and from what is left I don’t think it is possible to write a neutral page on this person as per WP:BLP core content policies. The second aspect I assumed could establish notability definitively was the books. I am concerned by the argument above that the wikipedia page is basically a promotional source for the books, about which I wasn’t able to find any reviews aside from homeopathy-promoting websites which cannot under the circumstances be considered neutral. If the author is considered a “foremost spokesman” it should be the case that his books would have mainstream reviews in reliable sources and I am not finding any. Mramoeba (talk) 00:36, 30 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Christian Television System

Aboriginal Christian Television System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced article about a television show, which has aired only on a single local community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) in a small town. WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every television series that exists, however -- a television series has to clear WP:GNG on the depth of its sourceability, which this doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 23 April 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 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pippo Casellati

Pippo Casellati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been around for a few years (after having been deleted for lack of significance a few days before being recreated). Only current source is a blog. Searches on news sites turned up zero. The only hit was this WP article. In books, there are a few trivial mentions, so it is clear that this is an actual artist, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show that they meet WP:GNG, and nothing verifiable in the article indicates he passes WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 23 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hill (activist)

Mike Hill (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have some pretty serious doubts about whether this passes either WP:GNG or WP:BLP1E. There seems to be essentially zero coverage of him for anything other than dying. Even then, it's the most passing of mentions (e.g., [25], [26]). At first glance it looks nice to have some big names in the reference section, but when you look at something like The Guardian, they actually give him exactly half a sentence, and themselves have nothing to link back to other than a niche wiki. From what I can tell, the sources in the article are pretty much the sources that are out there. GMGtalk 13:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:40, 23 April 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 Kimberley Chen. Ping me for protection if reverted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbonomics (album)

AfDs for this article:
Kimbonomics (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was "soft deleted" previously after an AfD, but this version is nearly identical to the previous (i.e. it does not address the concerns about notability). ... discospinster talk 13:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:41, 23 April 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 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purnima Gunarathna

Purnima Gunarathna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:RS. Only one source listed in Gnews, a case of WP:TOOSOON maybe.. Mredidiongekong (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:41, 23 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gauri Naidu

Gauri Naidu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable costume designer with 12 Google hits, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, no awards and no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. The article was recently deleted via an expired PROD as a non-notable individual. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! great, and he was blokced as a sockpuppet of already blocked user SudheerTelaprolu (talk · contribs), so I think we can delete this as G5. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 05:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the author of the deleted original version, SudheerTelaprolu (talk · contribs), is blocked for WP:PAID violation - but admins who can see the deleted one can see the commonality with this version. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 24 April 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:G12 -- a copyright violation. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjib Mondal

Sanjib Mondal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't find any evidence of his notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MegaMeeting.com

MegaMeeting.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable company. MER-C 11:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:04, 23 April 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 13:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kannan Nayar

Kannan Nayar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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:ACTORBIO. As far I can see, the subject has a major role in only film S Durga so fails WP:ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails GNG as well. WP:TOOSOON Saqib (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:47, 23 April 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 13:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rustam Gilfanov

Rustam Gilfanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I didn't find enough evidence he is notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the sources don't cover the context of article and it doesn't seems to be reliable and its like to the promoted articles.Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 16:29, 23 April 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umair Ahmad

Umair Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person; deleted 3 times in the past (not by AfD). It's promotional, likely an autobiography. The company they founded is also likely not notable (see the creator's sandbox). Vermont (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only of those three items that would qualify it for speedy deletion is if the article is blatantly promotional. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 23 April 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. Only one person supports keeping. Sandstein 13:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Nicholas Fernandes

Carlos Nicholas Fernandes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most coverage is (near) identical to the article about his company InstantTV. Insufficient editorial coverage about the person independent of the company. Most sources about his engagement in various bodies are primary, which is not sufficient for WP:BASIC. Lacking depth of coverage and independent coverage. Trivial corporate business reporting (such as reports about legal issues) does not establish personal notability. Additionally, there's a certain promotional slant to the article about both company and person. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fernandes was named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. Young Global Leaders have had to have a significant level of impact in order to be selected. For example, Jimmy Wales, Mark Zuckerberg and Marissa Mayer are also Young Global Leaders. More information on Young Global Leaders according to the World Economic Forum themselves is at on Youtube[1]. Techcrunch[2] lists some members and the World Bank[3] notes the selection process where selected members of about 100 are drawn from a pool of 8000 candidates. While I am not suggesting Fernandes has the same level of name recognition, surely he would be qualify for a Wikipedia entry.
    Just Googling his name points to interviews at the World Economic Forum annual summit in Davos[4] [5]. Very few people individually take on large corporations for a larger public interest goal (and more so in Singapore) so I believe he qualifies. Further, he not only invented the cloud-based DVR, but he also successfully ensured it was recognised as a legal offering. It's impossible to decouple RecordTV/InstantTV from Carlos Fernandes. That said, if you feel some parts are promotional, please feel free to remove those parts. I will add other details on other projects as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwUMVP77cT8
  2. ^ https://techcrunch.com/2009/02/25/world-economic-forum-announces-new-batch-of-young-global-leaders-mark-zuckerberg-chad-hurley-kevin-rose-and-more/
  3. ^ http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00818/WEB/OTHER/EXCEPTIO.HTM
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpFHE91mIDo
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk7DSwhnD4Y
@Twistedmind88: He is clearly a very busy business man, he is involved in many things, has done some good things and has media presence. However notability is not just about that. For an individual, it is about if the person is being talked about elsewhere, as opposed to the person talking about things. One would expect for a Singaporean business man of notability that Straits Times reports about him. A search for "Carlos Fernandes" and "Carlos Nicholas Fernandes" did not give any relevant hits about this person. For me personally, in a relatively small community like Singapore (or HK, UAE etc likewise), a primary notability test is if the leading English language paper reports about the person.
At the end of the day, there are many corporate leaders doing their job: running a company, networking, sharing thoughts and opinions about business today and in the future, be this at Davos on TV or elsewhere.
To put this into perspective: if I have done the research right, out of the 100 YGL in 2017, 13 have Wikipedia articles. Most seemed notable before being called on YGL. The Global Teacher Prize (for the record, he is not a winner, he is a member of the team of people deciding the winner), is over 200 people strong. I spot checked the first 20 in the list and found 5 with articles on Wikipedia, 3 of which are tagged with problems such as lacking sources or notability.
As the Basic notability rule states: primary sources (which are the YGL or Teachers Prize websites) do not count towards notability. There's also no notability by association ("I'm in a list with a notable person, so I must also be notable" does not work). To establish notability, there need to be secondary editorial sources, i.e. this needs to be talked about. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point about him being covered by the Straits Times is fair. He has been covered numerous times including front page coverage. The problem is that a lot of that content has been removed from the website because Straits times has a pay wall and a monopoly on news. So some of it is available only from reposts on blogs. For example, if you do a search on the National Library Website and look for the newspaper for Business Times (the Business Edition of the Straits Times), 2 December 2010 you will find a reference to the article on him. This warranted front page coverage. It is no longer available except through an old repost on asiaone. Is there a way to temporarily show articles (and there are many) to establish notability - possibly by displaying them on a third party website? Of course, these couldn't be used ON Wikipedia (for copyright reasons), but they could be used to establish notability FOR Wikipedia?
  • He's also been spoken about (notable) - by the Minister in Singapore as a man who has "made his mark"[2] on the country. This was covered extensively by the press too, but now only the original press release from the Government is visible. That said, as per the correct definition of notability you use, this should work.
  • He was also significantly covered following the Singapore Computer Society Young Professional of the Year Award in the press, but those articles aren't visible unless, I can share pictures of copies of articles from the National Library.
  • Global Agenda Councils (and the new name - "Global Future Councils") are a level higher than Young Global Leaders, since they do not have an age constraint. If you could check research there, I'd imagine the number of individuals with Wikipedia pages from that list would be a significantly higher percentage.
  • Finally, Carlos Fernandes is a very common hispanic name. The correct search item on Google would be "Carlos Fernandes Singapore". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try going to http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/ and searching for "Carlos Fernandes Singapore". You will get over 50 hits - out of which at least 30 are about him. You unfortunately can't read the articles. If you Google the headlines of the articles, you will see virtually no hits, because of the way Singapore news works. If you need access to the actual documents, they are available from the library and I can probably help get them for you, but I trust that would not be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case it helps, Fernandes was one of the few "industry leaders" (a term used by ASEAN - the Association of South East Asian Nations) invited[3] to speak to ASEAN IT Ministers at the 3rd ASEAN Telecommunications and Information Technology Ministers Meeting, Singapore. Other speakers included the the then CEO of Singtel Lee Hsien Yang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake_Brockman Here are some press links. These do not show up on Google. See:

  • Two S'poreans named among WEF's global leaders[4].
  • Appeals Court hits RecordTV Play button[5].
  • Record TV shows with an online VCR[6]
  • Spore firm offers free trial for online video recorder service[7].
  • Ideas Man with a zest for life[8].
  • Doing Business with the Big Boys[9]
  • His software is so smart the computer is almost human[10].
  • IT Leaders push the limits. Fernandes is center featured.[11]
  • Can-do Carlos![12]
  • Hail the IT Heroes[13]

@Jake_Brockman Trust your points have been adequately addressed. can we close this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.globalteacherprize.org/academy-member/carlos-fernandes/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Nicholas_Fernandes#cite_note-12
  3. ^ http://asean.org/joint-media-statement-of-the-3rd-asean-telecommunications-and-information-technology-ministers-meeting-singapore-19-september-2003/
  4. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GN0l3dHFLY3gxazA/view?usp=sharing
  5. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GWFh2VU5WUGFIOTg/view?usp=sharing
  6. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GQXQyV0g0V05YbVE/view?usp=sharing
  7. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GUFpKeEFIZTc5WDQ/view?usp=sharing
  8. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GNE1NRXNILVhUa0k/view?usp=sharing
  9. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GekZ6Q1NLak0xTkk/view?usp=sharing
  10. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GbE93Um5jLWFoMEk/view?usp=sharing
  11. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GNnI5b2w4RUN5Ymc/view?usp=sharing
  12. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GanAyRW41akRlY3M/view?usp=sharing
  13. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GV0tMSzR2TFRXVlU/view?usp=sharing
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some actual "keep" or "delete" opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 23 April 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 first keep that relies (uncontestedly) on WP:PTMs (Legacy of the Drow, Dark elves in fiction, Drow of the Underdark, Vault of the Drow). Sandstein 13:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drow (disambiguation)

Drow (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TWODABS. A hatnote can easily be used. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weak), ignoring the See alsos it fails TWODABS, but it's borderline useful as is with these See also and the wikt link, so on balance I'd err on letting this be, especially considering more entries are likely to turn up (and finding them by search is a needle in a haystack per the thousands of D&D hits I searched through). E.g. there's a few minor redirects such as Drow Ranger (not mentioned in article, so presumably minor). Widefox; talk 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Drow deities is a partial match, plus it's an offshoot of the primary topic. Other than a couple of obscure word definitions, there are no other meanings that I can find. TWODABs applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 23 April 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 13:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajpar

Rajpar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This tribe does not appear to meet basic GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. I strongly suspect that this is an attempt to promote a made-up (or at the very least non-notable) tribe. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. I'm going to nom this for deletion because notablity tag is placed on the article in October 2017 by @Sitush:

For what its worth, no corresponding entry even exists on local language WP's such as Sindhi WP and even Urdu WP. There is an entry on CA WP but is on some different topic. Saqib (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I legit belong to Paata Pahara of this Rajpar tribe, it is part of Samma Indo Aryan tribes there is even entire link for this tribe and website you guys are so stupid https://rajpars.webs.com/rajparsinsindhhistory.htm 2400:ADC3:111:C400:6984:1713:10B6:61B0 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2022 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traylude

Traylude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently notable "artist" in any particular field. Quis separabit? 07:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:02, 23 April 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. (As somebody who reads German I can confirm that the German article references coverage that clearly establishes GNG.) Sandstein 13:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jugend Rettet

Jugend Rettet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only references/claims of notability are based on unproven accusations of criminal activity. I don't see any way a neutral article would meet WP:ORGDEPTH at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least somebody asked for this article! I saw a request for a translation in the Dutch Wikipedia, and I did that. ("in andere talen", the grey links.) About the content it is just the same as the Dutch, Italian and German articles that are already there. Especially the German article has very good references, but I probably cannot use them for English. If you don't believe me just put this in an automatic translator "Deren Schiff Iuventa wurde Anfang August 2017 beschlagnahmt und die Staatsanwaltschaft legte Zeugenaussagen, Fotos, Videos und Gesprächsmitschnitte vor, die belegen sollen, wie die Besatzung in dokumentierten Fällen keine Menschen aus Seenot gerettet, sondern Flüchtlinge bei vollkommen ruhiger See direkt von den Schleppern übernommen habe. Unter anderem seien Migranten von intakten Booten übernommen worden, mit denen die Schlepper anschließend zurückfuhren". So if you do not like the findings of the Italian police do not shoot the messenger, and that is not an argument for deletion. Also that request for a translation is not a coincidence it seems, if you look at the provided links there are also requests for Danish and Spanish, but not for other popular languages. So I would really like to know where this comes from, because I can also translate it to Spanish, and would like to do so if desired. AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I now see the 'grey links' are removed and Wikipedia is dropping this 'translation help idea'? Nevertheless I hope my effort was not in vain and the article does not get removed. It was quite an issue in Italy and Germany, and it's a ship under Dutch flag, therefore the articles in those Wikipedias. Nevertheless you can also see similar grey links in e.g.: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ommen_(stad) AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is coverage in independent reliable sources in German, or any other language, and you have read those sources, then you most certainly can and should cite those sources in our article. The "English" in English Wikipedia simply refers to the language in which articles are written - sources can be in any language. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I can do that and improve two things in this article. But only if people really want the article and don't delete it! I shall use the German sources. I shall also use verb tense forms in English that are in fact closer to the original German article. It is a little technical but the German uses quite some konjunktiv tenses which should be better translated to English conditional tenses. (Instead of simple past perfect.) That would have a more neutral voice also. AntonHogervorst (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: My German is rudimentary - but quite good enough to see that the German version of this article shows sourcing over an apparently extended period from a wide variety of major German news media. This German organisation seems to have had far less English language coverage than German - but WP:GNG does not depend on the language of the coverage. PWilkinson (talk) 22:38, 28 April 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 as restored; nominator also withdrew objections based on this change. bd2412 T 15:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business Initiative Directions

Business Initiative Directions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notabilty. Cites five sources: four are the company's own web site, one is a blank page. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this version? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Philafrenzy, for pointing that out. The article was once well-referenced, mainly to reliable sources pointing out that the business is a scam. But all the independent references have been removed, leaving the current worthless article. Maybe better to restore it to that version? Maproom (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I would like to withdraw my nomination, now that it's been reverted to a better-referenced state. Maproom (talk) 23:06, 23 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revinate

Revinate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be based entirely on churnalism, republished press releases. Some of them are even on PR websites. This does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:05, 23 April 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 Userfy. to User:Manifestation/Monopoly (1993 video game) J04n(talk page) 13:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly (1993 video game)

Monopoly (1993 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure if this particular adaption meets WP:GNG - the main cite seems to be to the developer's own webpage. I removed one link to an ebay shop selling the game, and one of the other cites is a user-generated resource. I wasn't able to find anything additonal to support WP:GNG and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Seraphim System (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no one else seems to care about this, so it's up to the closing admin to decide what to do. In case he or she decides to delete this article, I have slightly tweaked the intro of the sequel, The Monopoly Game 2, in preparation of the deletion. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry - I opened every ref in the article and those above, I translated them and I can't see any RS, google is showing no better, the article could be draftified and worked on or merged. Szzuk (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is moved to the Draft namespace, that would be appreciated. It could also be userfied / put in my userspace? Maybe User:Manifestation/Monopoly (1993 video game)? The cover art would be deleted, I assume. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy and paste the information to that article space now, you do not need permission. Szzuk (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of East Carolina University buildings. J04n(talk page) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ledyard E. Ross Hall

Ledyard E. Ross Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college-campus building. The refs are almost all primary/non-independent, or mere announcements and not in-depth to demonstrate WP:GNG. DMacks (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 06:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto notes

Toronto notes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I put this up as a PROD which was contested by the author. I continue to believe it should be deleted. As I said in the PROD: Previously deleted as CSD at Toronto Notes and recreated here by the same user. Appears to still fail WP:GNG; there is no evidence of significant independent coverage of this publication. The one independent reference is a passing reference in a YouTube video that this is a study guide; that is not a significant reliable source of notability. Delete. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Everything I found was either OR - frequently under "Essential Med Notes", which seem to be Toronto Notes with a formal cover; mentions on things like the website or unreliable sources. If not delete, then would logically make more sense to merge under MCCQE (which itself doesn't meet notability with given refs, but could) or one of the other exams. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:49, 23 April 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 STMPD RCRDS. J04n(talk page) 13:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codes (DJ)

Codes (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable DJ and the article does not pass WP:MBIO or WP:GNG. There are no significant coverage for this person and he has not passed the criteria listed at the notability guideline for musicians. KingAndGod 17:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't credible sources as per WP:RS. Specialty websites not long in existence, no record of actions to warrant WP:RS. Tapered (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 05:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siddique Memon

Siddique Memon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass notability guidelines.  M A A Z   T A L K  14:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  16:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  16:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Express Tribune news article is about another person.  samee  converse  20:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, is here the discussion about keeping the page of the head of the Pakistan Cotton Traders Association or deleting his page and creating one about the former Secretary of the country's second largest province by population who is currently on corruption charges? If there is no page for the former Secretary in the languages of Sindhi, English and Urdu, my recommendation would be to just create and Keep the page on the Secretary only, and ignore the other person (for now, at least). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone2049 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Identity crisis aside, can someone assess the sources presented in the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 05:20, 23 April 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gasable

Gasable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable app. Of the two references included, the first [27] is a launch-related interview, and the second is a trivial mention. I find no other sources in English, but can't definitively evaluate Arabic sources such as [28]; they don't seem sufficient at a quick glance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahir Pandhi

Mahir Pandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK won some "Top Model India" title and received some press coverage.. but actors+models 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:NMODEL. Saqib (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I am not in favour of having redirects on some non-notable personalities. It always hold the risk of page getting re-created. --Saqib (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If articles get recreated from redirects the page can be protected. But WP:PRESERVE and other policies as well as the best interests of readers, are served by including redirects to articles where the suvject is covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:09, 23 April 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) Szzuk (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Kumar (basketball)

Ram Kumar (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:09, 23 April 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanon Miyahara

Kanon Miyahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable actress. There is no significant coverage of reliable sources and the article doesn't pass WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG. KingAndGod 10:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 11:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 11:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 11:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:59, 23 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refune Music

Refune Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity label owned by DJ Sebastian Ingrosso, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:NCORP & WP:GNG. KingAndGod 13:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:31, 23 April 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) Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narender Kumar Garewal

Narender Kumar Garewal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adjusted spelling of name noted below turns up substantial coverage in reliable independent sources for startibg national team and Air Force team player. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:55, 27 April 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. No arguments were made for deletion aside from the nominator's statement. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeth Revi Mathew

Vineeth Revi Mathew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 23 April 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. ansh666 21:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Loufrani

AfDs for this article:
Nicolas Loufrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a re-creation of a WP:COATRACK article that is more about the company than the man, and seems lacking in adequate in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Two similar discussions have both resulted in deletion of similar prior articles with the same name. We certainly should not need three separate articles for this man, his father Franklin Loufrani and their company, The Smiley Company. In fact, one article should be plenty. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not meet the notability guidelines. Note that this article may have been created by the company itself as they link to this article on their website: http://www.smiley.com/corporate. I have unveiled several manipulations of Wikipedia by the Smiley company in the past, i.e. in the article Smiley in several language versions of Wikipedia. The article Nicolas Loufrani (which then was deleted a year ago) was one of it. --TheRandomIP (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that both of the other two closely-related articles that are mentioned above were created by blocked users. This article was created only a few days ago by a user that has an edit history of only about 30 edits. That edit history includes only two brief periods of activity (for about one month two years ago, and then a few edits on March 27, 2018). The edits are mostly about companies, and generally display a high degree of familiarity with Wikipedia, markup formatting, citation templates, etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The current text relies heavily on media associated with (or about) Smiley, which leads credence to a merge. That being said, an isolated search found the following links from reliable publications that focus on Loufrani to meet WP:GNG. Press:[32] [33][34] Interviews: [35][36][37][38][39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willie d troudour (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The number of sources and mentions in the press on the article lead me to belive that the subject should meet notability requirements. After reading through the above discussion I can see that the subject of the article has a sketchy history, but it doesn't appear to be overly promotional or focus more on the company than his own contributions. PcPrincipal (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Smiley Company, no indication of individual notability outside of the company. --J04n(talk page) 13:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the company. no independent notability, and no encyclopedic interest otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don’t really understand why the deletion process is so harsh. I see now, through what has come up in this discussion, that perhaps I could have worked on the page a bit more before I submitted it. But how is immediately deleting something rather than working with the person who put it together supposed to help anyone learn? I would have been happy to work with someone who understand Wikipedia better than I do. I still don’t exactly understand what I did wrong here, and am happy to show where my information came from. I tried to understand Wikipedia a while back, and was overwhelmed. Now, I decided to give it another go and feel like new people have no place in this community.

I was reading up about past Olympics. Saw some interesting information on the page for the 2000 Summer Olympics which didn’t have sources before, so I added a few things I found. There doesn’t seem to be a problem with what I did there. I read about the closing ceremony over Sydney Harbour, and remembered seeing the Sydney Harbour Bridge mentioned in a history book or something I had read when I was in school, so I wanted to learn more about that. I saw an inclusion that didn’t seem to go along with other pages I have seen, as there was a section called “Other sources” rather than “Further reading,” which seemed to be appropriate. Someone undid that work, though I don’t understand how it went against Manual of Style guidelines, as indicated. In any case, I kept on, wanting to help improve the encyclopedia. I saw on the Bridge page that “Smiley face” linked to another page. I never really though about the history of the smiley and decided to read about it. That page talked about a man, Nicolas Loufrani, who from what I can tell contributed to expanding the lone smiley face into the expressions and emoticons that we use today. That would make him an important part of cultural history, which is the type of figure an encyclopedia would talk about.

Nicolas Loufrani clearly has “significant coverage” from “reliable” sources. In all the research I did for the page, I found “significant” coverage about Loufrani in the Smithsonian, New York Times, The Guardian, Vice, and even coverage in other languages. Everything I added was clearly sourced, and I don’t see why the page needs to be reduced as it has been. There is proof for everything that was mentioned on the page. This wasn’t something thrown together without thought. He is a separate entity from his father and has a much more lasting impact. He made the use of emoticons into what we see today. Were he not well know, I would have never come across him at all! I had no idea before clicking on the Smiley face page the intricates of the background or that it was a trademarked image. I would love some help here trying to make this page correct according to the community rather than just have it blatantly deleted. I see that the discussion has uncovered some references I hadn’t used previously, so I am going to make another attempt here to help the page.

Sources on the page –

Reuters - Part I pulled from: “Loufrani runs Smileyworld Ltd.”

Smithsonian – About Loufrani: In 1996, Loufrani’s son Nicolas took over the family business and transformed it into an empire. He formalized the mark with a style guide and further distributed it through global licensing agreements including, perhaps most notably, some of the earliest graphic emoticons. Parts I pulled: He formalized the mark with a style guide and further distributed it through global licensing agreements …Today, the Smiley Company makes more than $130 million a year and is one of the top 100 licensing companies of the world.

Vice - Part I pulled from: Franklin's son Nicolas joined him in the licensing-the-smiley-face-out business, and somehow turned its fortunes around. SmileyWorld Ltd now owns the rights to the logo in over 80 countries and turns over $265 million (£204 million) every year.

LSA Commerce & Consommation – Important parts: Nicolas Loufrani, CEO of SmileyWorld. A genius idea found by his father, Franklin Loufrani, who had taken care to file, in 1971, the Smiley logo and mark at the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI). Nicolas designs variations of the original

New York Times – Parts I pulled from: Nicolas Loufrani runs the company SmileyWorld, which is challenging Wal-Mart Stores' rights to the smiley face. His father, Franklin Loufrani, says he devised the symbol for the newspaper France Soir in 1971.

The Guardian - What I pulled from: the Smiley has also been surrounded by copyright controversies ever since the early 1970s when a Frenchman, Franklin Loufrani registered the trademark as Smiley World in some European countries. Wal-Mart tried to copyright the Smiley in 2006, but lost the case to Smiley World.

The Guardian - Pulled from the following: Nicholas Loufrani, who has taken over his father's happy empire.

iNews - Pulled from: Almost exactly 20 years ago, the two finally become one, and together with his father as its president, Loufrani launched The Smiley Company. It was his mission to breathe new life into his yellow-headed brother, not only by digitising him, but to give him emotions.

This is Money - Pulled from: Nicolas joined in 1996 and transformed it into a consumer merchandising licensing model. Today it is one of the world's top 150 licensing firms with 230 global licensees

Licensing.biz - Important parts from interview: The next major landmark was in 1997 when I joined the business and recognised the need to develop the brand into digital, and with that connect with a new generation of Smiley consumer. I noticed the use of early emoticons in mobile and digital and revolutionised Smiley forever by creating the first graphic emoticons used in technology, and SmileyWorld was born. This allowed us to create a collection of icons that expressed thousands of emotions and could be applied to a variety of products. Through this we created loads of new business opportunities, and also attached the brand to a whole new generation of Smiley consumers - the digital natives. I’ve spent the last few years moving Smiley away from its traditional ‘nuts and bolts’ consumer licensing model and repositioning it as a standalone lifestyle brand, by investing heavily in our design and marketing studio and this has caused real growth in the last year.

Licensing.biz - Important parts: After creating these graphical emoticons, we registered the trademarks for a new brand and intellectual property – and SmileyWorld was born. We then registered these designs with the United States Copyright Office from 1997 to 2000 and started publishing all of our newly created emoticons as .gif files on the web in 1998. These were the world’s first graphical emoticons used online. In 2000 we re-launched our website with all our icons as smileydictionary.com and the slogan The Official Smiley Dictionary. It was shortly afterwards that we started licensing the rights for our graphical emoticons to different telecom companies that included Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, SFR (vodaphone) and Sky Telemedia. We have over 230 licensees globally across 13 product categories.

Cinco Dias - Pulled from: The culprit is Nicolas Loufrani. who saw in the icons the birth of a new form of communication. His father, Franklin Loufrani, created in 1971 the smiley, the classic smiley yellow face, and Nicolas decided to develop it giving rise to a new language. Today, Nicolas Loufrani is in charge of a company that moves 265 million dollars (232 million euros) a year, The Smiley Company Brand. At first there was only one smiley , the classic, but when I entered the business, I used the digital technology of the time to do it in 3D. This allowed them to have more mobility, they could change the emotions, add accessories to them from different nationalities, create sports icons ... This is how we launched the first smileys dictionary . My slogan was "the birth of a universal language", the idea was to create a global language to replace the text.

The Times- Pulled: Nicolas Loufrani, founder of the Smiley Company, launched the yellow smiling face onto the internet in 1998. The Official Smiley Dictionary followed in 2001, with the aim of creating a “universal language”. Emojis followed.


The Drum - These operations pottered on until the 90s when Loufrani’s son Nicholas officially joined the business with a mind to shake things up. Arguably he started this process with his job title, which in full reads: creative mastermind, spiritual guide, beloved leader and commander-in-chief of the happiness forces. It’s a joke, of course, designed to raise a smile. “My idea was to bring more life to that logo,” he told The Drum. “I was fed up of it – I had seen it since I was born and I wanted to create something new. I started creating a 3D rendering of that flat logo, and from that 3D rendering I started developing lots of different emotions. “The Smiley started winking, poking the tongue out, laughing out loud, and I also started developing lots of different categories. Smiley became a character to identify different countries for instance. These Smileys became new properties for us. I realised my Smileys should replace these text emoticons and that they should be the new universal language that everybody could recognise.” In 2007, Loufrani again decided to change the pace of Smiley and move it towards ambitious new territories: lifestyle and luxury. Amazingly, this bold strategy paid dividends while still functioning under the licensing model. Smiley continues to work with grocers and high street retailers but can now count the likes of Fendi, Dior and Adidas by Stella McCartney as clients. This success is partially a testament to the brand’s sales team but, Loufrani believes, high-profile clients such as these come to Smiley looking for a kindred spirit.

La Parisien - From interview - "My father created this logo when he worked for France Soir. The brand was registered in 1971. When I arrived in 1997, I saw behind this smile a commercial potential and development of derivative products, "explains Nicolas Loufrani, CEO of Smiley World and son of journalist Franklin Loufrani. At the beginning of the 2000s, we created a brand universe, introducing the Smiley in several forms to bring it to life. We grouped them in a dictionary in 2002 and we have more than 3,000 different models. In 2017, the smiley will appear in a novel for youth, to appear at Editis, while a comic book project should also see the light, "and a personal development book around the concept of emotion, "says the young CEO. While a cartoon is also in the boxes, the company - for a percentage on sales - has just acquired the rights of merchandising Rubik's Cube, simply the best-selling toy in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarshDustE3 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation of sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 04:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; no notability independent of the company. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. I'm not a fan of redirecting BLPs to corporation; they may get acquired / renamed. Since the subject is not independently notable, better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are inadequate to meet the requirements for bio,but the company is notable. The argument for keeping amounts to "I know he's notable" DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seem to be plenty of mentions in sources but always in the context of The Smiley Company. I'm not getting any indication of notability independent of the company. ~ mazca talk 21:00, 2 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 to delete. As noted in the discussion, sources need not be in English. bd2412 T 15:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Buressli

Faisal Buressli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not familiar with the notability guidelines for basketball players, but this coach/player has a few references and was the first Kuwaiti to be awarded a basketball scholarship to play college basketball in the US. At least he is interesting. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 22:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 23 April 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) Szzuk (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Roslof

Laura Roslof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. A number of the references do not mention the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a search found reddit and blog-type sources, but nothing in Google search, news or books.104.163.158.37 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if more and better sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFT space so it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue of notability is always central to keeping or deleting a wiki. Can an artist be deemed to be notable for a single piece of art? In this case, Laura Roslof's time in the TSR art department was brief, and although she was a competent artist, she was certainly not one of the "stars" of the TSR staff. If the orange version of Palace of the Silver Princess had been distributed as planned, then her work would be long forgotten, and there would be no question that she would have a complete lack of notability. However, the fact that TSR, the giant of the games industry at the time, hastily withdrew the orange version from circulation due entirely to her artwork is notable. The fact that TSR re-released a new version of the adventure with her artwork expunged is also notable. In this case, that single illustration and its effect on an industry giant makes Laura Roslof notable. The fact that the rarely found orange version is now a much-sought after collector's item specifically because of her illustration adds to her notability. The sources are not the best, but the search continues. Guinness323 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guinness323, we do not assess artists here like art historians would. Your theory about her work and its place is nice analytical writing (aka original research), but not relevant to the deletion discussion. What counts are the published sources and whether she meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE.104.163.158.37 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, being collectible has no bearing on notability.104.163.158.37 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 23 April 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. J04n(talk page) 14:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angela and Jennifer Chun

Angela and Jennifer Chun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced spamvert by subjects' press agent. Fails WP:BAND and GNG standards. Orange Mike | Talk 05:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no evidence of notability: the Guardian ref looked hopeful but turns out to be the single phrase "music for two violins, agilely played by Angela and Jennifer Chun". Not serious coverage. PamD 12:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that it's a marginal case. But they have 3 albums from a respected publisher of classical music. They have been covered by the New York Times1 2 and the Guardian -- not in great detail, as noted above, but they at least merit the attention of a handful of major papers. Their releases have been reviewed by The Strad magazine12, Gramophone1, and the American Record Guide (not available online)The liner notes from their Bartok CD says that they have won several major competitions, but I've yet to be able to verify that. I'd say it at least meets this criterion:
    • Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). - Kenirwin/(talk) 16:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kenirwin. Their albums are released by Harmonia Mundi which seems to meet the criteria cited above. And, two reviews in the NYTimes, plus the other stuff cited above, should be enough to pass WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm convinced by Kenirwin and RoySmith's arguments that notability standards are met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:25, 23 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy & The Harlequins

Jeremy & The Harlequins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely primary sourced article, with some advertorial undertones, about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only thing here is that they've released one album on a notable record label, where NMUSIC requires two albums on notable record labels before the existence of the albums becomes notability in and of itself -- and the charting claims are tied to WP:BADCHARTS like CMJ and FMQB, where NMUSIC requires IFPI-certified charts on the order of Billboard. And exactly zero of the three sources here aid in getting them over WP:GNG, either: their own self-published website, their own record label, a Spotify stream. This is possibly just WP:TOOSOON, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when their notability and sourceability improve -- but nothing here is enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 23 April 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. J04n(talk page) 16:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nudes-A-Poppin'

Nudes-A-Poppin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The topic did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nima shaeri

Nima shaeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Editor of some non-notable short films. Subject does not appear to meet GNG at all and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having an entry on IMDb does not makes one qualify for Wikipefia page. Saqib (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMdb is like a telephone registry. It will list anyone in the film business, even if they had one, single, unsubstantial contribution. Moreover, it's a user-generate website, so it does not qualify as a reliable source. -The Gnome (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have many links of newspapers and news with his name, but in persian language. Is it enough or not?!

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24 Gone

24 Gone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single-sourced article about a short-lived band whose only discernible claims to notability are that one member went on to become a member of a more notable band (Dave Genn --> Matthew Good Band) after this one broke up, which is not an WP:NMUSIC criterion at all, and that AllMusic reviewed their only album. But NMUSIC requires several reliable sources to get past "notable because media coverage exists", not just one, and on a ProQuest search I've been unable to find any strong sourcing: even in their own hometown media, literally all I can find is a glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about the guy who produced their album. There's just not enough sourcing, and no real substance, to claim notability here. Bearcat (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing doing. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:16, 23 April 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) 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Mahroug

Erwin Mahroug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable producer. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. KingAndGod 09:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot of unreferenced content, but no claims of importance or significance, nor references that meet GNG. The website he created Bboyworld is also at AfD, and seems to have a better case of notability, but notability is not inherited. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:16, 23 April 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) 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Vanderby

AfDs for this article:
Ray Vanderby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion from artist's managment with dubious Claims (see especially this bloated advert]). Not notable musician. Claims charting but suspiciously there is no sign of any song called Suspicious appearing in the Australian singles chart in 1991. There is no sign of 93-D ever having charted. Claims he wrote Suspicious when it looks like he was one of three co writers (Glenn Wilson, Ralph Marshall, Ray Vanderby). Claims Cosmic Nomads got glaring international reviews but that's not supported. (Glaring? Guessing that's good) Claims a Severed Demons song was voted video of the week on Rage but no such voting takes place. He has done session work and toured in backing bands with big names but notability is not inherited from them. There is a lack of coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 10:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 10:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst he was a member of Blackfeather it was in two very short termed versions that never really did anything, well short of being a prominent member. The other two, he was not a member, he was a touring support. Blackmarket looks to fall short of #5, Their roster seems lacking but that could just be an issue with the current advert pretending to be an entry that is now there. Airing on radio falls short of rotation. Sources? First two local puff, third, PR for the festival he will be playing at, not independent. Touring nationaly is not enough for WP:MUSIC, it requires coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Was this written after hours and one too many? Sample lines: Ray Vanderby is the former lead singer of Australian rock band Cosmic Nomads. He is also the founder and songwriter of Cosmic Nomads, which he formed. Well, shiver me timbers! The Gnome (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's Foster's, mate!! Tapered (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reliable source used in the article is an AllMusic page, and none of the albums listed are even rated! The search tools produce one dedicated article at the website of the Australian national broadcaster—and some local blog posts. Out the door. Doesn't meet any requirements of WP:NM Tapered (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Arelle

Vanessa Arelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable. The article as it stands is essentially a rewrite of her website. She seems to be or to have been a cultural attaché in London, to have written some articles for Vogue Mexico, to be or to have been the UK production manager of the Art Production Fund, but not to have received the sort of in-depth attention in solid reliable sources that would justify having a page on her, and enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 12:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 12:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:15, 23 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Exotic World Pageant

Miss Exotic World Pageant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The topic did not receive significant coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only the references currently in the article, but coverage in the San Bernadino Sun, New York Daily News, The Daily Telegraph, Slate, CBS News would indicate it clearly passes WP:GNG. Not to mention discussion in quite a few books, such as Burlesque In a Nutshell - Girls, Gimmicks & Gags, The League of Exotic Dancers: Legends from American Burlesque, Burlesque and the New Bump-n-grind, and Strip City: A Stripper's Farewell Journey Across America, to name a few. Onel5969 TT me 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since subject comfortably meets notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 24 April 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) 15:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Havana Cooler

Havana Cooler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been unable to find any sources other than a few recipes on the web. There is one book cited but GNG requires multiple sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am sorry if the article was unsatisfactory. It was my first attempt at writing for Wikipedia. I have added additional book sources to the Reference section of the page. I hope this will make it acceptable. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thanks for your contribution, Capt. Milokan, but I don't see substantive sources for this that confirm notability. Recipes and mentions in a few books doesn't pass that bar for something as WP:ROTM as an obscure drink. Reywas92Talk 23:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:19, 23 April 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) 15:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Kharadkar

Vikas Kharadkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 23 April 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) 15:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riyaz Uddin (basketball)

Riyaz Uddin (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 23 April 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) 15:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sehaj Singh Virk

Sehaj Singh Virk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 23 April 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) 15:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madhurjya Borah

Madhurjya Borah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 23 April 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) 15:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Moore (Alberta)

Christine Moore (Alberta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a county councillor and as yet non-winning candidate in a political party's nomination contest to select its candidate for a future provincial election. As always, neither of these is a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself: provincial-level candidates have to win the election and thereby hold the seat to be considered notable as politicians, and are otherwise eligible for Wikipedia articles only if they can be shown to have already passed a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason independent of their candidacy -- while county councillors don't even get handed notability for holding office in and of itself, but are deemed notable only if they can be substanced and sourced as significantly more notable than most other county councillors in most other counties. But the referencing here isn't making her notable at all: the five footnotes here comprise two pieces of purely routine local coverage of election results in her own county's local media, her primary source profile on the county government's own self-published website, a provincewide "election updates" post on a non-notable WP:BLOG, and one piece in a major market newspaper which doesn't even namecheck Moore's existence at all, but is here merely to verify a purely tangential statistic about crime levels. None of this is enough to make a county councillor notable. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:12, 23 April 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 The Pharmacist (2010 film). Consensus is delete and redirect 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Sit

Chester Sit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a film director and producer, whose only stated claim of notability is that he and his work exist and whose only sources are the self-published websites and press kits of his own work. As always, filmmakers do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because their own primary source web presence technically verifies that they exist -- they have to actually attain a distinction that passes WP:CREATIVE, and they have to be reliably sourced to media coverage about them in references they didn't publish themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty Hinchcliffe

Kirsty Hinchcliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A recurring role in Haven and fourth billing on The Third Nail aren't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Also, an external link to her resume isn't exactly kosher. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also a likely WP:COI by an WP:SPA. The creator is User:Kirstyagnes and this suggests the actress's middle name is Agnes (relative listed is likely her husband, though her age is different). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:15, 23 April 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 Draftify. Moving to Draft:Road signs in Ghana J04n(talk page) 15:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Ghana

Road signs in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not encyclopedic. Meatsgains(talk) 00:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:10, 23 April 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. Consensus is topic is encyclopedic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Owen

Beverley Owen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: non-notable actress. Am watching her now on The Munsters -- lovely lady -- wish her the best but her eight IMDb (7 on TV) credits do not constitute notability nor does anything she has done since retiring. Sorry to her fans but .... Quis separabit? 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:17, 23 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_23&oldid=1142617189"