Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 April	10 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karvan Ahmadi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, not played in a fully pro league. NZFC^(talk) 23:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As he currently fails NFooty and recreate if he does make his league debut in the Allsvenskan. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above.BabbaQ (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftfiy - Sirius now plays in Allsvenskan, Superettan is the divison after Allsvenskan and also a highly elite divison, I feel there is a slight keep in this, but he still fails NFOOTY. ATZNA 20:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please read this. My point is he plays for a club in a fully pro league and is soon to make a debut in Allsvenskan, there is no point in deleting. Thanks. ATZNA 15:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a well established consensus against applying WP:NSPORT in anticipation potential future appearances. This sort of argument gets made on a fairly regular basis and is consistently rejected. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Sir Sputnik. I change my vote to draftify instead. ATZNA 20:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. samee converse 02:20, 17 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) 12:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kajjanbai

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 22:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be exceptionally notable. Alternative names should be added. See here. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generally you need strong signs of notability when you lack birth and death dates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it seems her career was rather short, there is evidence that she appeared in some high-profile films. I believe there is some confusion about her real name, which may go some way towards explaining the lack of sources. Deb (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kajjan is substantially notable in context to Hindi Cinema history.^[1]

The issue about her birth/death date is mentioned in ref provided above by FloridaArmy along with referential book here. Would suggest page move to Jehanara Kajjan (or Jahanara Kajjan as referenced to in pages 157, 158, 162 and figure 7.8 in the book "The Modern Girl Around the World: Consumption, Modernity, and Globalization")^[2] and ref already mentioned by FloridaArmy. Kajjan is rarely referred to as Kajjanbai now. Thanks to Deb there are refs now in the article. Kaayay (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rani Burra; India. Directorate of Film Festivals (1981). Looking back, 1896-1960. Directorate of Film Festivals, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
^ Alys Eve The Modern Girl around the World Research Group; Alys Eve Weinbaum; Lynn M. Thomas (3 December 2008). The Modern Girl Around the World: Consumption, Modernity, and Globalization. Duke University Press. pp. 157, 158, 162. ISBN 0-8223-8919-3. Retrieved 13 April 2018.

Keep per above arguments. samee converse 02:22, 17 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Awards

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

No substantial coverage in third-party sources to satisfy WP:ORG. Article was created and substantially edited by WP:COI editors. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references within article are based on the Awards' own website. The awards also don't seem to be specifically significant enough - no reliable 3rd party references showing up in a couple of minutes of searching online. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Calls for nomination and the granting of awards occasionally warrant brief mentions in local media. And, of course, the various recipients are quick to tout their recognition. But I've actually been surprised at how little coverage or direct discussion of the awards themselves--or the Alberta Emerald Foundation that awards them--seems to exist in reliable sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every award that exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its existence is technically verifiable in its own self-published content about itself — it has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. But the sources here are of the former type, not the latter, so they're just not cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
a Proquest news archive search makes it apparent that "Emerald Award is a name used for prizes given by several cities, including Clarksville, Tennessee (for civic participation) and Eugene Oregon (for enviromentalism.) This one gets SIGCOV in the Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald and in what appears to be every other newspaper in Alberta. Tehre have even been controversies (well, curmudgeonly environmental activists) Emerald Award finalist pulls name from awards. A solid article could be written, using reliable, secondary sources. given that Nom in incorrect in incorrect in their assertions there are "No substantial coverage in third-party sources" and that all 3 editors weighing in above are making assertions that no secondary sources or, in one case, that all of the secondary sources are "brief mentions in local media" I recommend that the closing editor roll this one over for a week. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there is not enough coverage to establish notability. An article in the local section of the local newspaper is not enough and the fact that there are other awards with the same name elsewhere is completely irrelevant.--Rusf10 (talk) 12:23, 17 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) 17:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Reuter

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a forum to advance the career of models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot of coverage. Fails GNG, so delete. M A A Z T A L K 20:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable photographer's model.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 17 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) 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabaa, Somalia

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

Somali "town". The one source describes it as a "hypsographic point", which implies nobody lives there. The coordinates given are in the sea and I can't see any trace of settlement on the adjacent coastline. Can't find other sources to satisfy WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non existent town, fails GNG L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, at least in this form. First and foremost, this is not--and has never been--a populated place. So whatever else is true, the article text declaring this a town is very much in error. As for the place itself... The first challenge is that the orthography of Somali place names is, to say the least, not standardized. Gabaa is Ras Gaba is a half-dozen other spelling variants. In 1987, the Defense Mapping Agency published the Gazetteer of Somalia: Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names, which, as far as I can tell, still constitutes the best efforts to standardize English-language orthography of Somali place names. According to the DMA, Gabaa and friends are all junior synonyms for Raas Gabbac. In Somalia, Raas (or Ras) anything is the equivalent of a cape in English; the best known by far is Ras Hafun (which the DMA suggests we should really be calling Raas Xaafuun, but I digress...). Raas Gabbac is a far less distinguished promontory. However, it's substantial enough to have been included as one of a relatively small number of Somali geographic landmarks on the 2011 UN Cartographic Section, Map 3690, Revision 8 (which you can see in a nice full-color version on page 16 of this pdf. Which at least explains what it is (the low-resolution coordinates which put the marker in the ocean are the fault of excessive rounding by either the DMA or the Board on Geographic Names itself). But doesn't really speak to notability under WP:NGEO. The controlling guideline is that "[n]amed natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." So, the question is... do they? Local sources likely do exist, from places such as Ely (the nearest populated place) or elsewhere in Puntland. But they are almost certainly in Somali or Arabic and are even more certainly not easily accessible online. I suspect that under at least some definitions, Raas Gabbac may mark the northern edge of the Nugaal Valley, but I haven't had much luck finding sources willing to define the valley region explicitly (much less name the cape at its northeasternmost limit). Regardless, if you're read this far: not a town, not ideally under this name, and... would require an assumption of "unknown sources exist" to meet notability guidelines at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:48, 12 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! 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academic genealogy of computer scientists

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

One big BLP violation sandwich, served up on a plate of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This doesn't belong on WP but on somebody's personal blog page. (OK it should really be a database somewhere, actually) Enormous labor of WP:OR with all kinds of unsourced statements about the relationships among people, some living some not. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sourcing isn't as bad as it may appear. Almost all of academics listed have a Mathematics Genealogy Project page that includes the given information; would be pretty easy to link to the relevant page. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is completely unrelated to anything to do with this discussion. The page in question is obviously not a directory. Second, this is not any kind of BLP violation. Give a specific reason, nom, if you disagree. Finally, this topic is obviously notable. Computer scientists were mathematicians until about 75 years ago, so mathematics genealogies provide both sourcing and GNG satisfaction. See [4] and the mathematics genealogy project for two examples out of very, very many. Not only that, but genealogies specific to computer science are also pretty common, see e.g. [5], [6], and so on. This isn't OR by any means. This is a well-studied, easily sourceable subject whose article could use some references. Absolutely not a candidate for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a steaming pile of WP:OR. Show us a source discussing relationships based on thesis advising. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as I said above, it's all on Mathematics Genealogy Project. For example: to verify that Roger Needham advised Ross J. Anderson, we have https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=42570. Adding such references would not be very hard, but it might be kind of ugly; I am not sure how to add every single reference without making the article unreadable. Regardless, this is just an issue of adding citations: the information is not unverifiable. BenKuykendall (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verifiability is not the issue. Also delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The project article states that it covers 222,193 scientists. Even if we assume only a tiny fraction of these relationships are significant (and who decides that?), that's still a large number >> N_{Wiki-manageable}. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you please say explicitly what part of INDISCRIMINATE you think is violated here? Certainly it can't be that there are 222,193 entries. The sheer number of entries can't possibly make the article an indiscriminate collection of information. The criteria for being a computer scientist are perfectly clear, so it seems to me that there's absolutely nothing indiscriminate about this. You ask who decides which of the relationships are significant? Obviously the RS decide that, like with every single other topic on WP. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, there are >= 222,193 article in the MathGenealogy. However, most of those are not computer scientists. Further, Academic genealogy of computer scientists should only contain computer scientists notable enough to have their own articles. This gives a much smaller number of possible entries. BenKuykendall (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the main point. Where are your RS about the significance, not the mere fact of their existence, of these relationships? This doesn't rise to the prominence of the Erdős number, or even the Erdős–Bacon number. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're moving the goalposts. Typically on WP we look for RS about the subject and use the existence of such sources to argue that the subject is notable and therefore article-worthy. However, now you want RS that actually discuss the significance? That's like metasignificance. A number of people have supplied RS that discuss the genealogy of computer scientists. While it would be nice to have them, we do not also need RS that discuss the significance of that genealogy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The goalposts were planted in my second sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A11 - Obviously invented. Szzuk (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you say more on why you think this? A number of real publications discuss the topic, as referenced in the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. No clear notability of relationships between listed BLPs. Over half of the listed entries do not have articles and are not needed notable inherently. Ajf773 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be sufficient sources, and sufficient importance . The information in Mathematics Geology Poject is usffieent for verification. It's not indiscriminate, as all the people are sufficiently important to be included there. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does a mathematical geologist do? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete (with of course a "refund" possible to someone who wants to migrate it off of en.wp to some other web host). Clearly this has taken lots of work. And clearly, it is Useful Knowledge for someone sometimes. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. The discussion of sourcing above has shown that the article will unavoidably struggle between the Scylla and Charybdis of original research on one hand, and merely selection from a subset of the Mathematics Geneology project on the other. Bottom line is this is information that should well be maintained somewhere, but there is no reason it should be in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. 21:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 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) 17:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Anderson & The Skinny Lovers

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

Article on a band that does not appear to be notable per WP:NMUSIC, and whose sources don't show it meets the general notability guideline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Beyond self-produced sites, social media, and routine gig announcements, the only independent source I can find on this band is already used in the article. It's a local interview: [7], and even that is a blog. The claim that the band has "signed contracts with MTV" appears to be a basic agreement to show videos. I will be charitable and cite WP:TOOSOON. To get on Wikipedia they will next have to be covered by reliable and independent media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it's WP:TOOSOON. Thegooduser Let's Chat 22:02, 14 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. There is a consensus to keep, the possibility of redirects can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1.96

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

This number is an arbitrary approximation of an arbitrary constant; there is nothing here that should not be found at Normal distribution or Z score. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at the page view statistics it gets about 200 hits a day, so some people must be interested. It a number a lot of people will have stuck in their heads as its the key number used to tell if a test passes at 5%, generally the level used in much of medicine where there you have limited trials.--Salix alba (talk): 09:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this article should/could be kept for now. I don't think this article needs to exist, not because it isn't significant (it is), but because this title isn't a very good one. At the last AfD, the title, 95 percent confidence interval in statistics, was suggested. Other titles such as "two standard deviations", "two standard deviations" (less accurate but still commonly used), etc. are also possible. Normal distribution, Z score, and Confidence interval are, I think, not quite as good of a location for this material. 68–95–99.7 rule is possible, and I would support a merge there, I think. I am not sure, though, and would like to read what others think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a merge in principle but there is so little actual content in this article that I don't know what to merge. A line in Confidence interval saying "the most common confidence interval is 95%" would seem to sum up the entire content of what's here. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I think 68–95–99.7 rule is the best destination, and the history section would be all that is merged. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's a good pithy title, for an important constant. To a mathematician, it's not as significant as pi, or e, but to users and writers of thousands of articles on applied statistics, it's significant. There's an article on pi of course, so 1.96 is legitimate. I suspect many of the 200 hits per day may be from people who don't know any other term to search for it under. A redirect under any of the other titles suggested would frustrate wikipedia readers, since it would be way down the page. I think the 68-95-99.7 rule is more obscure than 1.96. Now 95% is a redirect to Normal distribution, and it's a long way down the page before 95% is discussed.Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on e is called e (mathematical constant), so maybe this would be clearer as 1.96 (statistical constant). Numbersinstitute (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because e is something else. Parenthetical disambiguation is pointless if there is nothing to disambiguate from. --JBL (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename: it's hard to think what title is most appropriate here but I think it's important to note that the article's subject is not 1.96 or even 1.95996398454005423552, but z_.025. Perhaps 1.96 (approximation) or z-value of 0.975 would work. I would be happy with 95 percent confidence interval in statistics but not 1.96 (statistical constant) (the constant in discussion is not 1.96). But in any case, I think the subject itself is notable. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge elsewhere and delete/redirect. Given all the other related pages, I don't think a page on the approximation 1.96 makes a notable contribution beyond them. The value 1.96 only applies to the Normal distribution, but 95% CIs are calculated on many other statistical distributions; so I don't think titles like 95 percent confidence interval in statistics would be suitable. The software section can be deleted per WP:NOTHOWTO. Tayste (edits) 00:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's something people would expect to find in an encyclopedia. This is reasonably clear for the main title; We can deal with title problems with redirects. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 16 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 List of kings of Gondor. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eärnil II

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

Very obscure character; no indication this is a notable topic. Appears mostly in appendices, apparently. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 19:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FANCRUFT that belongs to Wikia FANDOM! Acnetj (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of kings of Gondor. All in-universe material, but redirects are cheap. Frodo may live, but this fancruft article shouldn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- fancruft, but redirects are cheap. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 16 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Chris

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

Non-notable Greek singer, no EL Wikipedia article about him, dubious sources and very few high-quality references. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Sims

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

No notability other than being related/an assistant to Britney Spears. I just did a search on Billboard, looks like her song/EP didnt chart either. Melodies1917 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has a fair amount of media coverage, but just about all of it is in relation to Britney Spears. Even her own music was reviewed in comparison to Spears and she has achieved very little as a musician. Almost all of the sources used to support this article are actually about Spears and mention Sims very briefly; even a fairly in-depth People article has "Britney's Cousin" in the title rather than her actual name. In short, notability is not inherited. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 10 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOSTATS. Matthew_hk t c 18:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 18:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 18:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For more context, half-centuries seem did not have a separate article from Century (cricket) and a rough inspection in Cricket records and statistics, did not have any list of half-centuries. Matthew_hk t c 18:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTSTATS, no indication as to why this list is significant or notable. Spike 'em (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Johnlp (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is suitable for Wikipedia, Because it has some useful information about the Indian premier league Half-Centuries. So kindly request this article should not be deleted.I will improve this article please give me some time (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Mr.Mani Raj Paul:. Wikipedia is not a webhost of everything. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that had some criteria for the entry. Please see WP:GNG, WP:OR and WP:NOSTATS. Matthew_hk t c 09:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is good article because when someone Search on Google List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries

It will directly show the information of knowledge graph.

Half-Century is a unique article in Wikipedia. & Also in a past 10 years this article not be created.but in 2018 I want this article of IPL Half-Century.so kindly request to you this article should not be deleted please (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Mr.Mani Raj Paul:, as a new user, i suggested you to read the policy of wikipedia. Matthew_hk t c 10:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the guidelines quoted? You thinking this is a good page is not enough. As per the above, Wikipedia is not a repository of random sliced and diced stats pages. Could you please provide a source for the overall list, as it otherwise counts as Original Research which is also not allowed. Spike 'em (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the Guidelines of Wikipedia, I update this article daily List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries.I also Provided the source, so I kindly request to you please do not delete this article (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

If you've read the guidelines, what are your views on WP:IINFO and how does this article relate to it? Spike 'em (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read guideline of Wikipedia, but I did a lots of hard work for List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries , If this article is deleted then I feel sad, This is a sports article, please help me what I do now , please approve my article please please.... Help me... (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortuately, amount of time spent creating content is irrelevant in deletion discussions. This article suffers from a combination of not being notable WP:N, being original research WP:OR, and being collection of overly detailed statistics WP:NOTSTATS. You need to show that this article fits within these guidelines rather than appealing for sympathy. Spike 'em (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. Scoring a half-century isn't that unique and certainly does not warrant an article on them for the IPL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scoring a century is fairly notable, scoring 50 is not. There is no way that a list of the 50s in one competition in one season is encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete if this article was about list of double centuries I would have kept the article. Half century is not notable enough. Also this fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:STATS. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:15, 15 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) 17:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Malone

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

Despite this being pretty squarely in my wheelhouse, unfortunately I can't find sufficient sources to meet our notability standards at present--the only real secondary source is a single paragraph in AdWeek. In January I declined an AfC submission for the same reason. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing an assertion of notability not substantial coverage to support one. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all journalists are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 12 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Therese of the Little Flower Catholic Church

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

Not notable under any of the thresholds, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:NCHURCH. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete RC parish with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In 1998, this parish saw its 50th anniversary and the Reno Gazette-Journal included in its September 26 Sunday edition a 12 page special insert about the church.[8] The insert is called a "special advertising publication" and features numerous ads congratulating the church as well as articles which were written by Dorothy Kosich, a journalist who normally wrote for the Reno Appeal. While the insert is labeled an advertisement, the articles therein are, in my opinion, reliable sources. Most of the current building was completed in 1978 and by 1998 had 3,500 families.[9] With this information, I found more articles, including: an announcement of the church's founding in 1947,[10] an article on planned construction from 1976,[11] some brief mentions of construction in 1978,[12][13] and a bit of detail in obituaries of church priests. I generally favor inclusion for older churches (especially pre-depression-era churches) whose buildings and congregations have made a mark on a city. As this church doesn't meet my arbitrary cut-off and the current state of the article is not encyclopedic, I don't feel it necessary to !vote keep. That said, I think a borderline case could be made, and am providing these links in case anyone wishes to make use of them (check out WP:TWL if you do not have access to newspapers.com). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ran a couple of Proquest news archive searches on differing keywords adding sources to article as I went through the hits, stopping and coming here to opine when I had satisfied myself that this is a notableparish. Lots more sources out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Oddly, I do not seem to have hit on the same articles mentioned by User:Smmurphy, different terms different engine, I suppose, But add his to mine and the ones each of us scanned or read but did not list, and I think you will agree that there is enough to show notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Smmurphy and E.M.Gregory. --Doncram (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my standards. It (1) "It has had two or more notable congregants." (although this is arguable.) (2) "It ... has been a major place of pilgrimage, beyond merely local or congregational interest." (3) "A significant icon, relic, or other holy item has been housed therein." Bearian (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above and the ones added to the article during this discussion, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 15 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommee Profitt

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

Non-notable music producer. SmartSE (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he passes criteria 1 of WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". He has collaborated with NF in the composing of three very notable albums which peaked at #1, #7, and #22 on the Billboard albums chart. He has also won a notable Dove award. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he's a collaborator for NF and some other artists however whether that work is notable isn't apparent from the refs. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 8 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)} 16:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets criterion 3 of WP:ARTIST, which states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. " This person collaborated on the writing and production of three albums that charted on Billboard charts, which are acceptable per WP:CHART. Contra Szzuk the work is notable because it charted. That's how we judge notability for recorded music. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:26, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Health intervention

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

"Health intervention" refers to the activities of people involved in Health promotion. This topic belongs in that article, but there is no cited content here to keep. Daask (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Health promotion is advocacy. Health intervention is action to induce people to adopt health behavior, through such things as taxation or regulations. Butthe present article is extremely weak, and it needs major improvement. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I realize

The non-technical meaning of these terms may imply those meanings, but are you familiar with the field of health promotion? Daask (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: edited 09:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, health intervention is part of health promotion and the article is a WP:STUB with only one citation. Waddie96 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 2 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)} 16:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A ridiculous nomination as nom has stated no valid reason for deletion. First of all, because topic X is part of topic Y does not mean that topic X does not get its own article. Second, that there's no cited material in the article is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN. That being said, the subject of health intervention massively, overwhelmingly, satisfies the GNG. Just e.g. look at [[14]], [15], [16], and on and on and on and on. As for Waddie96's argument that this should be deleted because it's a stub, well, WP:SOFIXIT. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: I agree with the notion in the essay Deletion and deletionism where: "If you vote to "keep and cleanup", be prepared to clean up. I, for one, keep a close eye on articles where this seems to be the consensus, and I will take it back to AfD after a month or so if no one bothers to touch the article in that time. To vote for keep and cleanup and then not clean it up is just lying." So please, if you wish to keep the article then please be prepared to fix it yourself and add information from the numerous sources you have linked above (as per WP:SOFIXIT as well). The article has been a stub since its creation in 2009. There was no activity for 1 year until it was nominated AfD. -- Waddie96 (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you take an interest in an article where there are available reliable sources that are not in the article it is as much your responsibility to add them to the article as anyone else and taking such an article back to AFD instead of fixing it yourself is poor practice as the article will almost certainly be kept on the basis of existing rs, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:192.160.216.52 has an ongoing SPI here accused of avoiding a topic ban on all deletion discussions. It might be appropriate to disregard his/her vote. -- Waddie96 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note -- It's an ongoing SPI without evidence that no one believes is accurate. It's reprehensible of you to cite this as a reason to ignore my "vote" (even though no one votes in AfDs). And your sharing your beliefs in various random essays is kind and interesting, but it's not relevant to the outcome of an AfD. AfDs are decided purely on the basis of WP policy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Waddie96: Being a stub, for any length of time, doesn't necessitate deletion. And "Keep and Clean up" only has any moral strength at requiring those who say that if their Keep vote was contingent on it being cleaned up. Some cases obviously fall into that, however many who say that do so on the grounds of thinking it is poor, but still Keep-worthy (just) as is. I say with mixed views on this specific article, so haven't yet come to a clear view. Nosebagbear (talk)

On which note, what on Earth does "encourage at-risk subjects to develop a viable theory of mind that supersedes authoritarian structures" mean? @98.154.255.130: Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it means "It'd be nice if there were more responsible, personally mature adults in the world"? The original reminds me of Dave Barry on downward tropism in pre-adolescents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep per DGG rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am unpersuaded by 192.160.216.52 (talk)'s examples and appeal to WP:ARTN. Intervention is a word widely used in a variety of disciplines to describe what they actually do. Note, for example, that Intervention (consulting) appropriately redirects to Organization development#OD interventions. Separating the page on a profession from the page on the activities of that profession seems highly unusual to me. We don't need a page on Activities of nurses in addition to Nursing. I'd propose merging, but there's just nothing here. Daask (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and Ozzie10aaaa: I realized the confusion might be related to bias in the lead of Health promotion toward public policy advocacy. I just wrote a new lead for that article that might help clarify this discussion. Daask (talk) 09:57, 16 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. The consensus is that the subject does not satisfy either the notability guidelines for hockey players or the general notability guideline. Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stajcer

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Triggerbit (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spent 2 regular season games on an NHL roster, even though he did not play, and I was able to find a number of articles about him, for example here, here and here, not counting coverage of his fight with Malcolm Subban which would not count towards GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have to actually play to meet NHOCKEY. (Not a comment on if they meet GNG or not) -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He does not meet NHOCKEY. I mentioned his time in the NHL because that is still a notch more than most players who never played an NHL game have, which I view as a relevant consideration in a close case. Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reviewing WP:NHOCKEY and the comments below, I have been swayed to move this to delete as it does seem to be typical local mentions. -- Dane ^talk 20:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, and I don't see how or where he might meet WP:GNG either. PK T(alk) 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on a roster does not give notability, the person has to have playing time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and coverage is local and/or typical of any minor league athlete. I don't see that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the coverage is "typical of any minor league athlete." We go through many AfDs for minor league hockey players and most do not have this kind of coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 17 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)} 16:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet the NHOCKEY criteria. Lots of brief mentions but I do not think the coverage of the subject qualifies as SIGCOV. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles I linked to all are full articles specifically about Stajcer. That is not just a "brief mention." Rlendog (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 14:22, 11 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! 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Decorative Arts Society

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

Fails WP:GNG I can find no independent sources that mention them let alone cover them in depth. Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am finding a couple of passing mentions in obituaries for John Morley, founding chairman (Guardian, Telegraph) and the annual journal of the Society itself via JSTOR, but not the in-depth coverage about the Society which is needed for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Journal publications are referenced on other sites, such as the William Shipley group for RSA History ^[1], and the Crystal Palace Foundation ^[2]. The society also provides grants and bursaries for museums and individual researchers, as referenced on the Bury Art Museum website in November 2015 ^[3]. Honek (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)honek[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krina (film)

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

Non-notable film, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. PROD contested by the author without providing a reason. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This film will release soon all significant related of film add as reference this is a real not a fake For any kind information Movie have get UA certificate from Central Board of fim for release check on IMDb

(Thank you)

Rishi Kumar Maurya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi Kumar Maurya (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, with no prejudice against re-recreation if it does turn out to be notable. The usual Bollywood advertorial in the mainstream dailies is also missing on this one. WP:TOOSOON at best. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM --Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing enough to meet notability. Article also looks like someone connected with the film or paid by someone on the film is editing the film and related actor/actress articles. Ravensfire (talk) 20:44, 12 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 Oath#Modern law. Consensus is that the primary topic for this term is its legal sense. A hatnote will be placed at the target article for the band. Mz7 (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under oath

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

Delete and redirect to Oath#Modern law. Very clear primary topic, and the band name is not even spaced the same. bd2412 T 15:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this revision there are two films (notably without articles) with the same name that may require disambiguation in the future. I'm not sure if that means this disambiguation page should be kept, but I don't think it is as clear cut as it my seem in a quick glance. - Paul^T+/_C 16:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, I would move the disambiguation page to Under oath (disambiguation). There is still a primary topic. Absent those articles, a redirect and hatnote will do. bd2412 T 17:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree That makes perfect sense to me! - Paul^T+/_C 17:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and Hatnote) - bd2412's altered suggestion seems perfect to me. One extremely secondary topic and two non-created articles don't warrant a frontal disambiguation page. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as sugegsted, perhaps with a hat note. The target article needs sources. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 15 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! 15:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extrability

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

This is a neologism with few results on google. Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The content of the article is significant enough, though currently lacking in sufficient suitable references, and thus worthy of deletion in that way. The name certainly is a neologism, but a "Coping Mechanisms" [Not the band!] or "Coping (Physicality)" would both be reasonable names. I will see if I can find some more general references. @Natureium: would you have any concerns if it had a couple more suitable references and a non-neologism name? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Failed, unnoticed neologism that doesn't have the extrability to keep itself in Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism for a nonexistent "thing" based on hippy-trippy wishful thinking and the euphemism treadmill. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:25, 15 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! 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bell & Ross

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

I'm dubious about notability here. All three references, as also the "Further reading" article, are from specialized magazines/websites about "the world of watches", and I think their capacity for establishing notability in the wider world is slim. The page at The Watch Quote[17] is a dreadful puff piece about "one of the most beautiful adventures in watchmaking of the late 20th century". I looked at The Watch Quote's "Who are we?" page,[18] which is as fulsome as their page on Bell & Ross (and as the other "brand sagas" that I sampled), and it contains the suggestive statement that The Watch Quote was created "to enter into genuine partnership with the great horology brands and professionals". It looks a lot like the "partnership" involves the brand professionals writing their own page. The offers to press officers (?) and journalists to "contact our Press Service" on this page, even though vaguely phrased, suggest the same thing. The Augustman site[19] is billed as "The definitive men's network", and I can't see anything other than promotion on it; no tests, real reviews, or anything like that. Apart from such obvious infomercials, I suppose there may be mentions of Bell & Ross in reliable third-party sources that I can't find: Google gives so much advertising from sellers of the watches that it's difficult to find anything else. Anybody got anything? Bishonen | talk 15:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the french article is sourced from Le Figaro and Challenges, which count as WP:RS. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable watchmaking company that follows the normal modern methods of promotion.--Racklever (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Bishonen has questioned the company's methods. And as far as I'm concerned, it's welcome to advertise. But Wikipedia should then ignore its advertising, just as it ignores most advertising (until the advertising itself is a matter of discussion in "reliable sources"). What disinterested sources do we have? What makes the company "notable"? -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I don't blame the company for promoting themselves. But their self-promotion does not confer notability, that's all I'm saying. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete a couple of fluffy blogs and one decent ref. Here for promotion; no thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Figaro page causes my browser to freeze, but I managed to extract its text via roundabout means. What with Bell & Ross a réussi à accomplir le rêve de toute marque de luxe: imposer un modèle iconique etc, it whelms me. (Is the writer perhaps dazzled by potential ad revenue?) Are there any other sources? -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are zero indications of notability - a run-of-the-mill luxury watch company with no intellectually independent references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent. The Figaro reference mentioned above from the French language wikipedia page fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it relies extensively (exclusively?) on an interview with Ross, one of the founders. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have nothing but the utmost respect for Ms. Bish, but I must respectfully disagree with her arguments in this case. Bell & Ross meets WP:GNG per (a) the sources in the article, and others as well. Just for instance, here they are discussed in a marketing textbook, their watches are reviewed, which, if these were books rather than watches, would be a clear indication of notability. In fact, they are reviewed in the NYT. In fact, they are reviewed multiple times in the NYT. In short, this company is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The marketing textbook shows an ad for these watches and spends three sentences on the company; so yes, it mentions the company, but to say the company is "discussed" seems a stretch. The first "review" in the NYT looks to me like something out of The Onion; but my (irrelevant) opinion aside, it uncritically recycles self-flattery, for example “Sapphire represents for us the apex of luxury,” said Carlos A. Rosillo, chief executive of Bell & Ross. “It is the material of choice for a product that we finish so flawlessly that it has nothing to hide.” And more of the same kind of twaddle. The second "review" says In recent years, Bell & Ross has introduced watches alongside high-concept supercars and motorcycles from its own design team. This year it’s taking that approach to a new level by pairing a watch with a plane, a single-seater pylon racer created by the brand’s co-founder and creative director, Bruno Belamich. The BR-Bird plane has the wings; the BRV1 and BRV2 Racing Bird watches have the hour and minute hands. This is the BRV2 chronograph version, which shares its graphic look with the plane, and will be made in a run of 999 pieces. -- no more than uncritical recycling of PR puffery. Where is the review? Is the watch accurate, reliable, durable, comfortable, legible? We're not told. (Or, imaginably, we are told; but my rather odd way of reading the NYT hides this from me. So please feel free to correct me.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like you don't appreciate the same kinds of qualities in high-end watches that their users and manufacturers do. You want accurate, reliable, durable, comfortable, legible? Buy a Timex. The point is that the NYT covers the watch, not that the NYT covers the watch in a manner that you, who aren't part of the stupidly expensive watch community, would approve of. You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, but actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about. This is why we rely on RS coverage rather than our own opinions. If the NYT publishes it we assume they're publishing the relevant info. They know more about it than we do. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On first reading, 192.160.216.52, I found your comment peculiarly annoying. When I asked myself why this was, I had to concede that it was because the comment was rather good. I can almost agree with it. However: You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, but actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about. The second half may well be true. If it is true, then why the "but" in the middle? (Why not You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, and so it is; despite this, actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about?) I can also concede that the NYT knows a lot more about its business than I do. I suggest that an important part of its business revenue is "luxury" advertising and that "luxury" advertorial content keeps advertisers happy. But whatever the reason why the NYT text is flatus, it's flatus, whereas this is an encyclopedia. ¶ I looked for (somewhat) critical material about watches. It exists. "A Blog to Watch" publishes a lot of bland and uncritical "first looks"; but among these are actual reviews, for example this of an Orient watch. Strangely (to me), the matter of how well it keeps the time goes unmentioned (ditto in the other reviews that I looked at), but the reviewer exhibits a critical intelligence when evaluating its legibility, scratchproofness, etc. So sources can and do write up wristwatches without going gaga. Any examples for Bell & Ross? -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horological and watch enthusiast publications have some quirks. Critical reviews (i.e. those that assess the quality of materials, fit and finish, movement accuracy, etc.) are reserved for watches in the (what is considered low end) $300-$1000 range. Reviews of the luxury watch segment (Rolex, Brietling, Omega, Bell&Ross, etc.) tend to sound gushy and swoony because the quality is expected to be (and usually is) superb when you're paying $3,000-$10,000 for a watch. Watch movements used in that caliber are typically Swiss or in-house and are certified by the COSC to chronometer standards, so accuracy (i.e. "does it keep time?") isn't an issue. All this makes high end watch reviews hard to distinguish from adverts, because they read like a Car & Driver review of a Lamborghini, i.e. slick photos and gushy prose. Anyway, I removed all the sources that were questionably fluffy and added some more serious sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The brand in question has an entire page on their website where they archive Independent press coverage of their watches going back 4 years for pete's sake (some may be advertorial but certainly not all of it): https://www.bellross.com/pressreview It is a luxury watch company and gets the sort of coverage luxury brands get. AlasdairEdits (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this archive, AlasdairEdits. I see a set of illustrations of (cover?) pages. One can click on these. I did, a few times. Each time, I got something larger, but no more informative. If it's certain that not all the "independent press coverage" is advertorial, that's good; can you please then point us to a couple of exceptions, that is, to legible, intelligent, substantial independently-written text about the company and/or its products? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is routine, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. The arguments The brand in question has an entire page on their website where they archive Independent press coverage are not compelling; see Churnalism. A WP:PROMO page on a run-of-the-mill brand, which even luxury brands can be. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the well-known international watch brands among horologists, and plenty of good quality sources recently added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin In the hopes that this comment will spark some effort on the part of Keep !voters to provide links to references ... the current situation is that it appears that despite the number of Keep !votes, there is still not a single references that meets the criteria for establishing notability (in particular, references that pass WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: LuckyLouie, you say you "added some more serious sources". Here's one of these: <ref name="GJ">{{cite web|last1=Lee|first1=Josh|title=Behind the brand: Bell & Ross|url=https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/article/behind-the-brand-bell-ross/|website=The Gentleman's Journal|publisher=Gentleman's Journal|accessdate=12 April 2018}}</ref>. Its opening sentence: Internationally renowned and revered by timepiece cognoscenti everywhere, Bell & Ross has become a benchmark in the world of professional aviation watches, despite being relatively new to the industry. Its closing sentence: By combining refined aesthetics with the expertise of Haute Horlogerie, it’s little wonder why Bell & Ross has become the yardstick by which other houses measures themselves against. And what's between these two sentences is more of the same twaddle, as the writer bangs on about such seemingly no-nonsense (but actually vapid) things as in order to guarantee high-quality [sic], only the strictest quality controls are implemented, regardless of however [sic] complex the mechanism is (Just what are these quality controls, and are they stricter than those used by Rolex, Seiko or whoever? We're not told) and saying that form follows function, while saying that form follows "tribute" the Vintage collection pays tribute to key eras of the great aeronautical adventure, and particularly to the aviators who were the first professionals to consider the wristwatch as an asset on their missions (in particular, a big deal is made out of the design notion of a circle within a square) or is "radar-inspired". A wristwatch is referred to as "wrist armour" in one context where it might actually be armour ... but also in a second context where it can't be. I imagine that the bullshit in this non-article is designed to lull the reader into an appreciative stupor and to encourage advertising; whether or not the content is mere churnalism, it's junk. Failing to see how an encyclopedia worth the name can be built on junk, I believe that this article should be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel all of the sources are trivial, paid shills, and just plain wrong, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable per GNG, NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and Wikipedia is "NOT" a business yellow page directory nor free advertising vehicle. The last two alone give amply reasoning why a run-of-the-mill luxury watch company (as stated above), should not be presented on Wikipedia. There are many multiple hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of companies and this is why we don't advertise for them as they are not encyclopedic. The company self-professes "as a young house" and there is no historical significance. This continued push to get companies listed on Wikipedia needs to be resisted according to current policies and guidelines. Let them pay facebook in lieu of free full page Wikipedia sponsored advertising. Oh! It is free so why not --right? What about the "AeroGT concept car" that would seem to be pretty notable. It is a computer generated concept car for ----- advertising ----- and not an actual designed car. Otr500 (talk) 12:18, 18 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 and redirect to Dream Team (TV series). Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Wright

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

Fictional footballer that fails WP:GNG, I fail to see the point in merging or redirecting a fictional name which not many people will know, it hasn't been merged as previously suggested. I suggest a straight delete. Govvy (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dream Team (TV series) per previous AFD consensus, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Fletcher. Giant Snowman 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect - per above, consensus is these fictitious players are not notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 11 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! 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vainte

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

Article does not meet notability standards. No reliable secondary sources can be found mentioning the character. Page currently cites no sources Chumash11 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notplot. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 14 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 March for Our Lives. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March for Our Lives Albany

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

Not notable, no continued coverage of the event, only primary (Wikipedia is not news). It's been a week. wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to March for Our Lives where the various locations are detailed. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a state protest. The protesters were fighting for a cause that only applies to New York State, trying to change New York's gun laws. This event has nothing to do with what the larger March For Our Lives is demanding from the federal government. I will be adding a paragraph to the article including this information. There is much more continued coverage, you just have not found it, or do not care to find it. Great Great Grandson (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC) — Great Great Grandson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Redirect to March for Our Lives. In retrospect it would have been best to just perform the redirect (giving an explanation) then place the article up for AfD if the redirect was undone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I did put up a WP:PROD and it was rejected. wumbolo ^^^ 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Arguably the only rally that warrants a seperate article is the one in DC. All the protests were held for a collective goal; this one is no exception.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: Not correct. Protests on the state capitals like this are focused on changing state gun laws Great Great Grandson (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently some continuous-coverage citations on the page already. Great Great Grandson (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the March for our Lives or March For Our Lives Locations pages, possibly give it a subsection there.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's enough sources here for a stand-alone article; the list article would not be able to accommodate it. The goals are also state-specific, aimed at legislative effort in New York State. Compare with March for Our Lives Portland, currently nominated for Good article status. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article. No reason to have this as a stand alone. I would suggest the March for Our Lives Portland should be handled the same way as this article based on consensus here. Springee (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: Heres are some reasons; It was a state capital protest not focused on the same issues as the larger March for Our Lives, it had an attendance of over 5,000 , and it featured US congressmen and NYS assemblymen. Great Great Grandson (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since several people I know (including the three speakers named in the article) were involved in this particular event, I'm not !voting. If this were kept, it needs a lot of trimming down of the cruft. This was created by a banned user. It's poorly written; I'm not sure how the "actions taken as a result" really follow logically, or how we'd update "this weekend." I would not oppose a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of the user account does look suspicious. Springee (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This weekend" has been updated" and I will try chronologically organizing the actions taken section Great Great Grandson (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Meets GNG. As well as its a state protest. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent article per above users. Werehilly (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article. There's nothing special about this march vs any of the other marches in other cities on the same day. People marched. People gave speeches. Some politicians showed up. The local papers covered it. Merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 17 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Garay Nagy

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

Can't find any in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show that he passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article indicates he passes WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing much either. The one thing that seems legit is one private collection here [20]. Otherwise all I could get was a gallery with a wix site [21] a local newspaper story [22] and a postcard [23] for a show at Gallery Steiner. Nothing in OneSearch. Theredproject (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just total garbage vanity spam. RS Not available, fails GNG.104.163.158.37 (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this undisclosed native advertising. MER-C 16:26, 12 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! 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D-Block & S-te-Fan

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

Not a notable DJ duo. They have placed on the DJ Mag Top 100 polls for several years but it does not indicate notability because the polls are determined by fan votes. There is a lack of significant coverage of reliable and independent sources. The duo doesn't seem to pass WP:MBIO either as they have not had a single on a national chart or on airplay. They also have not released two or more albums on a major record label or a notable important independent label. KingAndGod 14:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons stated above. I did a web-search on them and no media coverage came up, not even from Dancing Astronaut which is normally very active in these sort of artists. Web searches only lead to ticket-sales and performance venues, which suggests that this topic isn't notable enough as for now. aNode (discuss) 16:01, 9 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! 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Rights Club Nepal

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

Club does not appear to meet criteria at WP:ORG. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination but the org lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 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 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one reliable ref in the article the rest primary or youtube, google and news showing nothing. It appears to be a local club with limited numbers of members. Szzuk (talk) 16:48, 14 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 Downtown Phoenix. I've redirected the article for now since most of the existing content was unsourced, but content related to the topic can be selectively merged/added at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC), revised 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Square

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

Not notable. This name is not in widespread use. It is mostly disused. Searching turns up two residential buildings that use the name, one of which is not even within the boundaries listed in this article. Even the website listed (coppersquare.com) goes to a site now called Downtown Phoenix. This appears to be a marketing term that never stuck. The area is better covered in Downtown Phoenix. MB 13:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It's easy to find sources which discuss and explain the program, in which that part of Phoenix was coloured copper -- its street furniture, shuttles, &c. The new branding of "Downtown" seems more vague but, in any case, that's a matter of ordinary editing; there's no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Downtown Phoenix. SportingFlyer talk 05:14, 10 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! 15:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonso A'Qen-Aten Jackson

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

Subject does not currently meet notability criteria, e.g. Notability guidelines for actors. I've found no significant coverage in reliable sources. This person appears to have mainly worked as an extra or in minor roles, and Wikipedia is not IMDB. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:05, 2 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 13:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NACTOR; I can't see any credited roles for Jackson other than as an extra. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an updated credit in Black Lightning Season 1 Episode 12 that aired on 4/10/2018 in which this actor is credited on & there are a host of other credited projects that are awaiting release in 2018. He also received an award as an actor on the rise in the 2018 Atlanta Actors awards.DCCLXXVII (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DCCLXXVII: Please re-read WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, (actually, all of Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:GNG. Simply being in films or TV shows, credited or not, is insufficient. The Atlanta Actors Award, assuming it is the same as this one, is not a well known award. We need significant coverage of the subject from multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject . Promotional coverage, press releases, passing mentions, self-published, or coverage in non-reliable sources do not demonstrate notability. While the subject may become notable in the future, Wikipedia does not jump the gun to cover subjects before they are become known (lest we perpetuate outright promotion), and it currently appears too soon for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not IMDB, nor LinkedIn. And if you are affiliated with Mr. Jackson, paid or otherwise please review conflict of interest guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:14, 16 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I ended up doing a WP:BOLD redirect to Ministry of Sound since there are so many backlinks to this article. The WP:REFUND still applies because it's a soft delete; if any editor wants the old history of the article restored, let me know, and I can do it in a jiffy. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data Records

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

Non-notable subsidiary of the Ministry of Sound record label. It does not have significant in-depth coverage as required by WP:NCORP & WP:GNG. The only reliable source I've found about this label is a short paragraph by Resident Advisor [24]. It is not sufficient to pass the relevant notability guidelines. KingAndGod 13:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 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. With no high-quality sources presented, I'm happy to apply WP:BLPDELETE here. Mz7 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Dayneko

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

The article is sourced exclusively to The Sun - that's a WP:BLPDELETE almost right there. I can't find any sources outside of tabloid journalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 12 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. Its well established that a good article still needs to meet inclusion standards and in this case the demolition of the sourcing has not been refuted, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Hit

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

Tagged for notability for over a year. Charted 193 in South Korea so doesn't really meet WP:NSONGS. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref check

defpen Tiny article saying that new single coming soon
Latina Tiny article saying that new single has arrived
Softpedia RS? Tiny article saying video has been released
Allmusic Album review with Good hit mentioned by name only.
Rap up Tiny article offering "sneak peak" at Good Hit
Billboard Album review with small mention of Good Hit alongside other songs
Buzzworthy Probably best source. Paragraph about the song.
Popcrush Album review - 2 sentences on song
Slant Album review - "Inaptly named Good Hit" only mention.
Digital Spy Album review - (see "Good Hit") used when describing generic songs
AV club Same as above
LA times About another song - Good Hit gets a short sentence
MTV Romania Apparantly ]she is "super hot" in the video
Standard coverage for any song released by any major artist. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- the article is listed as a good article, and hasn't hurt anyone for ~6 years. Both of these create a presumption for inclusion, and I haven't seen anything to rebut that presumption. Being a single from a significant artist is also strongly in the article's favor. Passes WP:GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a good article has nothing to do with notability. In fact it suggests that what we see is what we get (i.e. there are unlikely to be any more good sources out there to demonstrate GNG). How long it has been here is irrelevant, but it has been tagged with a notability and reliable sources tag for nearly two years so I am not the first to question its notability. Can you show a reliable source that gives significant independent coverage of the single (requirement of WP:GNG)? Album reviews don't count. I have gone through all the independent sources in the article and not found anything. It fails the WP:SNG so must rely on GNG. We don't presumed every significant artists singles are notable. The only argument I can think of to keep is that the other singles on the record have singles. That is weak at the best of time, but especially as some of those singles should probably be deleted as well. AIRcorn (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Neutral, we're just into the realms of what constitutes significant coverage, ~~there are a large number of weak refs leading me to a weak keep~~. Szzuk (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a closer look at those refs. The number is less than you think as album reviews don't count towards a singles notability and most of the others consist of a sentence or two. The best ref is an MTV blog AIRcorn (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look and switch to neutral, the refs are a bit weaker than at first look. Szzuk (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On third reflection, now a delete. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:05, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alhassan Mohammed Gani

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

A vice-chancellor of a university that doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page. What's stated in the article doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The university deserves a Wikipedia page, if this article can be written better I'll vote keep. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In many countries based on the English system, the vice chancellor is the actual head of a university; the chancellor is a ceremonial position. People who hold vice chancellor positions at major universities in those countries pass WP:PROF#C6. Do we have any information about whether Nigeria is one of those countries and about how major Federal University, Kashere is? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Oh yeah, I forgot about that; I'm from a country where university chancellors are not ceremonial but actual executive roles, so I forgot that that was the case in Commonwealth countries. Since Nigeria is a former British colony, I presume that they probably took inspiration from the British education system, but just to be sure we may need to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria for clarification. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 and David Eppstein:"Vice chancellor" is the chief executive and academic officer of University here while "Chancellor" is ceremonial/titular role given to traditional rulers. In addition, generally all vice chancellors (of public versites, at least) are seasoned professors with long record ( what is called full professor in U.S.). –Ammarpad (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the university (if and when an article is created). This is one of many articles on Nigerian academics created by an inexperienced user in poor English and with poor references (and a possible COI). I don't necessarily think the subject is not notable but the article definitely isn't ready for the encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb:. They are being created in poorly-managed edit-a-thon. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with the non about the sate of the article, this person clearly passes WP:PROF#C6. Also per WP:NEXIST, poor stat of the article doesn't mean he is not notabele.–Ammarpad (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the article has to make a statement of notability, which is where this one is lacking. His notability is reliant on his academic position, but the notability of his workplace is still at issue. If you're prepared to work on the article to bring it up to standard, we can put it into Draft space.Deb (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be mentioned that it is not worth singling out this article. Most of the articles listed at Category:Nigerian academic administrators and Category:Nigerian academics were created at that editathon. The status of most of those articles is similar and therefore you could possibly find out the organisers and arrange for mass improvement of those articles. It seems that Princebenj (talk · contribs) (also the creator of the mentioned article) could have been one of the organisers. I would therefore insist you to take the critical issues up with him, especially because he is still continuing to create similar articles. I am just another volunteer who is trying to help. Diptanshu 💬 04:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While monitoring new pages, I have come across a shower of articles on Nigerian academics, possibly created as a part of an editathon. It seems that the articles come under WP:NPROF and therefore can be retained. Diptanshu 💬 18:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Diptanshu 💬 above.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 18 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn, I should've done a bit better WP:BEFORE (I did actually look, just not hard enough.) (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Capp

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

Non-notable photographer, no in depth coverage, fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep her work is in over a dozen museum collections. I could go on, but that is enough to satisfy WP:NARTIST

--Theredproject (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A clearcut case. Also meets WP:AUTHOR for her book on Hutterites, which was widely reviewed. Here are a few instances: [25], [26], [27], and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:14, 9 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. Editors can consider merging by being bold or starting a discussion on the talk page Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular corner flags in English football

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

Of the five accessible sources in the article, only one appears to actually be about this topic; the other four are only passing mentions or otherwise not specifically about triangular corner flags. One of the sources is Football-Stadiums.co.uk, which as far as I can tell is not used in any other article (and in any case, I am unsure about its reliability). I don't have any access to the two books so I don't know how much detail they give the topic. As for triangular corner flags themselves, most of what I could find online are forum posts. Had corner flag been a separate article rather than a redirect, I would have suggested a merge there. At best, perhaps this could get a brief mention at FA Cup. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Football pitch - Properly sourced, this could be an encyclopaedic topic, but not as a separate article. Corner flag would be my preference, but since that topic is also insufficiently notable for its own article, football pitch will have to do. – Pee Jay 09:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It fulfills WP:GNG, this is a tradition in English football culture which is certainly not insubstantial. Indeed I could even cite the film (which I think I will). The sources are more than just passing mentions for example, the Telegraph one is stating that the Triangular flags are a reason for why AFC Wimbledon was stating a claim to be the heirs to Wimbledon. The book sources cite the tradition being used popularly but erroneously in quizzes and the other cites football context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into football pitch (not independently notable) and then delete (not a valid search term). Giant Snowman 09:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: As far as I know, "delete and merge" is not exactly valid due to attribution reasons (in that an article can't be deleted if it's a source of merged content). It needs to be one or the other. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You merge the history into the existing article and then delete the redirect. Giant Snowman 09:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above merge !votes appear to have been WP:CANVASSed by Naruto here and here. The reason why they have been told about this on their talk pages seems to be based upon opinions given at WT:FOOTY. To me in my opinion, it is giving the appearance of WP:VOTESTACK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - WP:AGF applies. An editor went to a WikiProject for advice on notability of an article, was informed by two experienced editors that it did not appear notable, and then took it to AFD. Giant Snowman 10:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the editors I pinged were users who had participated in the earlier discussion at WT:FOOTBALL, regardless of their opinions of the article. If there were any other editors who mentioned they wanted the article to be kept, I would have pinged them too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not to mention the fact that I am my own person. I had something to add to the discussion, so I added to it, not simply because I was asked to. – Pee Jay 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is (as it appears) an obscure tradition, then we can validly have a separate article on it. Merged to football pitch (which is also international) it would be lost in UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an AfD discussion page and discuss whether delete or not. Not discuss about merge. Merge discussion please see WP:PM, thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to deletion can be proposed/discussed here. Giant Snowman 10:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion
Yeah. I know. Since it sent to AfD, so we should discuss here first. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] Which is what we're doing...? Giant Snowman 10:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] Just note to nominator. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to football pitch, the content of this article could easily be summarised there without violating WP:UNDUE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But wouldn't that be UNDUE by giving weight to an English cultural tradition in a page that is supposed to be about global football pitches in general? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The existing football pitch article only mentions the existence of corner flags as delineating the pitch dimensions. The article could go on to say that flags are normally square (?), but in some cases triangular flags are used (sourced to the NYT article). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NYT article demonstrates the notability of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable bit of football trivia, passes WP:GNG due to diverse number of sources. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is total trivia. The NYT article gives no evidence that the practice of having a triangular flag only if you had won the FA Cup is true. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weak Keep - I'd prefer Merge for the arguments made, but a straight keep if need be (though I would assume that if it wasn't kept as is, then it would be merged). If the sources given were slightly stronger then it would be a straight (Weak) Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nosebagbear: I have added another source about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Football pitch. Some coverage warranting comment but not enough for a standalone article. Fenix down (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But that would be UNDUE as football pitch barely even mentions corner flags let alone their size and shape. To put this article into that one would put undue weight on the corner flags when they are not really that important in the grand scale of football pitches. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly and this small tradition barely needs mentioning. Merging doesn't mean copying the whole text. Fenix down (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact there is more information about this culture and tradition shows there is more worth mentioning. Indeed maybe I ought to create an article for Corner flags which would be a more appropriate place for it to be in than lost in the football pitch should this !poll go down the merge route but at the moment it looks like a no consensus to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: creating a whole article, even if better suited, might be a little OTT atm, putting it under the FA Cup (or FA cup final) might make more sense Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR, anybody can use a triangular flag in English Football, for any reason, so this isn't a tradition, it is trivia. Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think the sources are sufficient to warrant this.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 02:52, 16 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! 15:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Cinema Snob episodes

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

More unencyclopaedic fancruft with virtually no verification. BangJan1999 09:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 10:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 10:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete damn, you beat me to it.....💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All links in article have no resemblance to subject. Ajf773 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there can be a Wikipedia article about this show, then I see nothing wrong with *one* article listing its episodes. I guess it just needs a lot more references. I also did quite a lot of work on this article and I'd hate to see my work disappear. EclecticEnnui (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep to let EclecticEnnui add references, plus I don't see the problem with this article. If TV shows everyone has forgotten get episode list articles, why can't an over a decade running web series have one? -JonathanDP81 (talk | contribs) 09:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your contributions to the article are appreciated, but it is unlikely that there will be anything but primary sources to support its existence. Saying that "T.V. shows everyone forgot about have articles, why not this" boils down to other stuff exists (Which doesn't really work as an argument in this context), and the list altogether is essentially fancruft, which is why it will probably be deleted.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard delete, this subject has no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever and is completely random and crufty.★Trekker (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN with no significant, independent, or secondary reliable coverage. A couple of individual episodes get the odd mention here and there, mostly in blogs and such, but nothing that talks about his overall episodes independently. Yosemiter (talk) 01:19, 16 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Shweta Tiwari

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

The article only cites one blog on Weebly, which — of course — is unreliable.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 09:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a deletion argument; what sources an article currently cites is irrelevant here. Please read, and then follow, WP:BEFORE, and then expand your nomination rationale. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 9 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! 15:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Del Piero

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

Not a notable DJ/musician. The article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:MBIO as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and the person doesn't appear to pass the criteria listed at the notability guideline for musicians. KingAndGod 08:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no sources. The only sources that turn up using the search tools above are compilations of articles from Wikipedia Francaise. No notability. Tapered (talk) 05:21, 10 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! 15:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nextshark

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

fails to meet basic GNG. trivial coverage in Forbes. Saqib (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cites from Complex, and New York Post, Quora.--A21sauce (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why disagree? Quora is not a RS. Whereas NY Post and Complex only name checking the subject which is trivial mention. --Saqib (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think toward the future and what is bubbling up instead of doubting everything about a country I might not like or don't understand. "Namecheck," uh, no. These sources rely on Nextshark as a source. Without it, they would have zero basis for articles?--A21sauce (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, among the refs given there are just 3 one line mentions, google and news showing nothing better. Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're taking these "one line mentions" (manipulative language there by the way) out of context: These articles are intentionally short and to the point! They are not an obit of an unknown person in the back pages of a paper. Does anyone here have actual research skills? This shouldn't be left up to a question of one's tastes.--A21sauce (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an IP editor has altered the AfD page link in the article and it no longer works. Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; they changed the capitalization to match the rest of the article, which unfortunately broke the links. ansh 666 00:22, 15 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! 15:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus per DRV. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ascot–Guildford line

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

Not an actual railway line, merely a rail service. Not independently notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 20+ services that have articles and that's just in the South-East England. As the article notes, this service does make use of three different lines on its journey. --Meanderingbartender (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that there are service articles, and some, like Night Riviera, are notable. But I don't see how this one is. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a railway line, not a service. Nightfury 08:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I agree that Ascot-Guildford is an un-notable service rather than a line, but if we delete it what line do we show for the stations at Bagshot, Camberley and Frimley? I propose that we rename and amend the article to cover the Ascot-Ash Vale line, or at a push Ascot-Aldershot. Trains reverse at Aldershot to continue through Ash to Guildford so this section is clearly not part of the same line. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with a rename. I support the rename to Ascot-Ash Vale, as the branch line diverges from the Alton line just after Ash Vale. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs cleanup/sourcing/renaming, not deletion. Szzuk (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reference it or it goes I'm not opposed to the idea of a service being notable, rather than a geographical line. But it needs to demonstrate that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 17 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 Stephen Blackwood. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralston College

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

Once-proposed college which has never actually existed and whose web/social media presences have not been updated in nearly two years. Appears to be defunct and non-notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the creator of this page and I apologize for the slow response and indeed for my recent neglect of it and of Wikipedia generally--it simply has not been possible for me to spend much time on Wikipedia, but I hope that this situation is now changing and that I will be able to participate more. With respect to the deletion proposal I would make a few observations. First, it does seem to be true that they have not been using their Facebook and Twitter accounts at all. But having said that it does not seem to me that the level of social media use ought to have any relevance to Wikipedia (and especially to deliberations like this one), either positively or negatively. There are lots of reasons people and organizations back away from social media, and their having done so ought no more be seen negatively by Wikipedians than having a strong social media presence is seen positively. It's just irrelevant. Second, I don't see their website in the same way because official websites are often a usable source of some importance. In this case they appear to altered their website quite extensively since I last looked at it. In particular I note that they have made at least 15 new board appointments since they gave up on social media almost two years ago. This hardly seems compatible with the claim that this organization is defunct especially given that their recent appointees include the likes of David Alton, Deirdre McCloskey, Roger Scruton, Anthony Daniels, David Gelernter, Vernon L. Smith (a Nobel prize winner!), Ruth Wisse, and George Walker. Even in its pre-student phase this organization appears to be seen as an importance locus of innovation. Third, a quick check on the IRS website shows that the IRS still regards them as an existent tax-exempt entity, and under these circumstances I think the presumption should be that it is too soon to determine that they are out of business. Perhaps one should also bear in mind that it's surely not strange for a start-up college to spend quite a long doing fund-raising and similar tasks so that one might well expect that there would be a period of several years between the legal founding of the institution and the beginning of teaching. (For comparison I note that the University of Georgia was founded more than 16 years before its first classes.) I will try to find out more about this; I do not live in Savannah but I know people who do and perhaps there is information in the public domain about their current state of development. In the meantime I will do what I can over the next few days to improve the page. I suppose I may be a bit biased because I created the page but I really do think that for now this article should stay. Tillander 14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that having a bunch of names on a "Board of Visitors" is not evidence of existence or of notability; having an actual campus and holding actual classes would be. There is vanishingly little reliably-sourced evidence that this organization has any real existence. If the best you can do is point to "here's some names of people who are on an unpaid advisory board," that's not notability. If this does become an actual college at some point, we can create an article on it then. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's true certainly that the mentions in the local press and elsewhere (such as the New York Times) are not recent (presumably this is what you're thinking of when you say "vanishingly") but once again this seems to me only to be expected in an organization that is still engaged (primarily I'm guessing) in raising funds, and it certainly does not mean it seems to me that the organization is not actual or lacks real existence.Tillander 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The “New York Times” mention is an 8-year-old mention in an opinion blog post, and is entirely based on the self-declaration of the purported college’s founder. There is no reporting involved, and 8 years later, there is no more evidence that this “college” will become an actual thing than there was then: not much. Again, we aren’t here to promote things that someone wishes will be. If and when Ralston College exists outside a website and defunct social media sites, we can write an article about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephen Blackwood [28] [29] College isn't open for admissions yet. [30] [31] Create section about the college in Blackwood's article and when it opens and has students, it can then be easily split off from the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Blackwood's article is just a single paragraph, so it can be developed in that context. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. For now this is just a pipe dream of Blackwood and some others. If it actually starts accepting students then we can revisit the issue, but there are lots of proposed colleges that go nowhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is worth taking a look at: https://vimeo.com/167070060 It certainly suggests that at least some of the visitors aren't just titular, and I find it informative in other ways. Also I notice that their twitter account has become active again, perhaps in response to the proposed deletion of this page. Tillander 11:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still inclined to think (and have thought all along) that the range of notable individuals associated with the organization that is the subject of this article is sufficiently unusual and remarkable to cause one to see the article in a somewhat unusual light. Certainly the involvement of Harry Lewis is significant and, judging by the vimeo link in my preceding post, substantial. The same may well be true of the involvement of people like Stanley Fish, Douglas Hofstadter, and Harvey Silverglate. Tillander 11:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The news articles still strongly tie the college to Blackwood, so this can be developed there as a section as perhaps Blackwood's most notable contribution besides Boethius. The name drops of who is involved isn't really helping, as lots of organizations have notable sponsors. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that we do, in fact, have entire categories filled with significant proposed institutions and things (Category:Failed museum proposals in the United States, Category:Proposed museums in the United States Plus there is some WP:SIGCOV, Savannah Morning News, 14 Feb. 2011,: HIGHBROW HOPES FOR HIGHER ED, but not very much of it, In sum, I concur that efficient thing to do here is to redirect this to Stephen J. Blackwood.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 17 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lockboxer

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

References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Website seems to be owned by a Chinese company now, so looks defunct anyway. Edwardx (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article can be recreated if the subject becomes notable enough to be the subject of dedicated articles in WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The two existing articles (2 other RS are deadlinks) get us toward a GNG since they detail the subject at the level of a dedicated article even though they are not dedicated articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Web site is gone - is this even a company any more? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by Lockboxer. There appears to have been a sequence of ventures: Lockboxer, Moveboxer, and most recently Salesboxer. (See the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moveboxer, which had been created by another WP:SPA.) Regarding Lockboxer, the August 2011 coverage is typical start-up coverage describing the proposition. Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 9 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. —SpacemanSpiff 23:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Panthi

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

Run of the mill journalist. No awards, no critical acclaim of his work. Maybe part of a long term effort to use Wikipedia for promotion. Previously deleted topic. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing all notability criteria in the book, and being obvious self promotion. And I'm not the least impressed by his claim about being "... the first accredited Nepali journalist by US Department of State"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles by Panthi don't show notability, and promotional videos and passing mentions in mainstream newspapers don't either, nor upcoming books. See WP:JOURNALIST. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. For above reasons. Note this has been referred to an ANI. 2604:2000:E016:A700:FCF6:5A0A:A1B0:A425 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Per nom. London Hall (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found so many notable links about him in different languages. Let me improve this. I don't think we should delete this. HariKrishna123 22:44, 14 April 2018 (EDT)

Note: The article was created by an IP, edited by a throw-away account, declined twice at AfC (and in between those two declines HariKrishna123, i.e. the editor above, tried to remove the first decline through this edit...), and then moved directly to article space, bypassing AfC, by HariKrishna123, i.e. the editor above. Suggesting paid editing... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:06, 16 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. – Joe (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Kennedy Road

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

News article (WP:NOTNEWS WP:UNDUE) by a Abahlali baseMjondolo, a fringe political group, that seems to be/have been using Wikipedia for self-promotion/propaganda (WP:COI) and as a gazette, in which events and persons connected to this minor organisation seem to be given undue weight. Unfortunately violence in South Africa is not notable in itself, and rioting was common during the time period in question. By the standards of South African township riots, it seems to have been rather tame, and it fails WP:Notability. Like other Abahlali articles, the formatting of the article is excellent for an article about a South African topic, and it appears to be well-sourced, but that should not impact on the decision to remove it, or merge it Park3r (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom says it appears to be well sourced and I agree. Szzuk (talk) 13:02, 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 01:38, 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 06:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Be serious. The sources already in the article are far, far more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Nom's theories on why, despite meeting GNG, this subject is not notable, are interesting, but they're not AfD-worthy reasoning. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:46, 9 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. – Joe (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosure

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

pasted reference is not exist. BoeunKim (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this sounded like a hoax article at first, but then I found this book (page 73) that actually details the ritual! So whilst it's legit and that book seems like a credible enough reference point, I don't know if an article of any significance can be built from it, or if the practice is even that notable. Searching for "gosure ritual" seems to yield more/better results. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per search result of Google Book. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:08, 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 06:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notable ritual, as proved by sources cited by above editors. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 15 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. – Joe (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Cause

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable NGO. Originally a SPA-created self-promotional article, the content has already been trimmed. But I wasn't able to locate any independent sources for a stub. Note: Noble Cause Foundation, Bangalore seems to be a separate organization (or would be a duplicate either way). GermanJoe (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 80% of the article is more of a general issue - it has (almost) no relevance at all to the charity. Then, as noted, there are absolutely no references. Some detailed searching didn't bring anything up, not even anything that I could be confident as their own website. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this organization is clearly not notable, and linking it to a real issue vioilates WP:NOTINHERITED. This is also compoletely unsourced, violating WP:V. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 15 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. – Joe (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khasokhas Weekly

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability guideline for newspapers.I fail to retrieve any non-significant coverage other than trivial name mentions in RS.And, I've no clue as to how the previous AFD ended with a result of draftification.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very minor publication for a narrow audience. I've just send the publisher to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishor Panthi (2nd nomination) Legacypac (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources tending to show notability. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 21:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. For those entertained by such things, I note The New York City Post, a...thing...used as a "reliable source" in this article. That source includes as one of its 'Breaking News' items an entry titled "The Best 12 Places to Have Sex." If only 13 had been listed... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable self-sourced promotion. "The New York City Post", used as a source in the article, is a GoDaddy site apparently operated by the owner of the subject of this article, and most of the other sources also lead straight back to him (his article is also at AfD, BTW). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 13 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBus (London)

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

The article is not that important. It just shows stuff about an announcment system and I don't think that is what wikipedia is for. C2216 (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is strikingly honestly WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the topic appears to pass WP:GNG. Possible speedy keep for failing to advance a proper argument for deletion. SportingFlyer talk 06:11, 9 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 19:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trigonometry in Galois fields

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

All references have the same author. Article created by the author of the references (his login name is its initials). Non notable subject: A Scholar Google search provides only references to the same author [32] Thus WP:COI and WP:OR D.Lazard (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity or delete. The article is nicely written, but the nom is correct: I don't see any significant reliable sources independent of the main author. This topic has not yet generated coverage in independent RS, per WP:RS, that are needed for verifiability and notability per WP:GNG--perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. While not yet suitable for WP, this content may fit better at Wikiversity and may be a good candidate for a transwiki transfer. Otherwise, without independent RS, and with no good merge or redirect targets I could find, deletion seems the best course. --Mark viking (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete (vote change) ~~. keep~~ if you education does not allow you to carry out due diligence in the area. Finite-field trigonometry is fairly well developed, albeit narrow area of research. WP:TOOSOON is a ridiculous judgement: it is at least 20 years, even by sources cited. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: perhaps you could indicate those sources, because the ones actually in the article seem pretty weak: MathSciNet shows only irrelevant or self-citations. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article from as early as 1972, this is 1973. You have to search for trigonometry+"finite field". Anyway, I do not really care about the subject. Please notice that "the author of the references" is the only one sho treats the field systematically. But, first, there are also article by others, most probably his students, because they also appear is his co-authors. Second, there is a bunch of disconnected articles dealing with trigonometric formulae in finite fields. Since some authors are Russian, there may be publications in Russian language. Third, this is related to cryptography. Therefore I think this subject deserves some attention. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: I have spent about 5--10 minutes comparing the first paper you mentioned to the article in question (which is to say, enough to skim both but not to fully digest the subtleties of either). As far as I can tell, they are not actually related. The journal article is about character sums of a finite field, i.e., certain maps from the field into the complex numbers; the wikipedia article is about functions from certain finite fields to their sub-fields. Am I mistaken? --JBL (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK you convinced me to change my opinion, especially keeping in mind that article authors do not care to chirp in here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is undergraduate maths text, nothing useful here, the article was created in 2006 and has more or less sat unchanged since. Szzuk (talk) 08:54, 16 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. Whether to create a redirect is an editorial decision.

We still do not agree whether certain types of school should be considered inherently notable, and that discussion has been going in circles for a long time. But this AfD is particular in that the "delete" side contends that there are no third-party reliable sources to make the content of this article even verifiable. Prima facie, that seems to be true, given that all references in the article are to the school's own website. One could argue that this website is an acceptable primary source, but that argument is not made here, and in any case the idea of sourcing an article exclusively to the subject itself is anathema to the concept and practice of verifiability as we understand it.

The "keep" arguments all assert notability based on this being a college, but they do not address the sourcing concerns or offer new sources. Because of the fundamental importance of WP:V as a core policy, which cannot be superseded by local consensus, the "keep" opinions have to be disregarded. Sandstein 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola College, Vettavalam

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

Seems to fail the notability guidelines. No independent sourcing for the details. Looks like promo. The Banner talk 20:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, tertiary education institutions are usually notable, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, lack of independent sources in the article (at the moment?) are a concern but may be a case of article improvement not deletion? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Schooloutcomes does not state that with so many words... The Banner talk 22:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Schooloutcomes discusses the probable outcome of a deletion discussion for a school; any attempt to use it in such a discussion is inherently circular. For that reason it is among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but i like circular reasoning, therfore i like circular reasoning Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thiruvalluvar University unless multiple, substantial, in-depth independent reliable sourcing can be provided – at the moment it's sourced entirely to its own website, so there's no indication whatsoever of notability. It's possible that there may be sources in languages other than English; but in English, there are no hits on GoogleNews and no relevant hits on GBooks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to find a "local" name, but not even the school website provides such a name. The Banner talk 23:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RfC on schools concluded there was no basis to change the practice of always keeping articles on high schools. Every reason for that applies all the more to colleges. A reason for deletion might be lack of independence, but I see no evidence that its affiliation to Thiruvalluvar is other than the customary Infian way of getting the degrees authenticated. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Creative interpretation of the RfC. Unfortunately, the RfC is NOT stating your interpretation clearly. But it is stated clearly that school are not notable just because they exist. Their notability must be proven... The Banner talk 06:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree that sources beyond "existence" is required, which is why mine above was a "comment", btw doesnt point 2 talk of tertiary ie. degree issuing (Loyalla is apparently ug and pg), institutions are notable, but do require independent sources? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh no, am i being circular again?:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thiruvalluvar University. No WP:RS to be found, at least in English or in Google translation. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_College,_Vettavalam[reply]
Delete not fully independent enough to default a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, poke around on their website and it quickly becomes apparent this is a real college - with a really rubbish english language website. Szzuk (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What about indepehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_College,_Vettavalamndent sources to prove the notability of this school? The Banner talk 17:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It only offers University degrees, in the UK every one of these would have an article, so I extend that logic to this college. Szzuk (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Based on what policy? The Banner talk 19:06, 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 05:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per DGG. Furthermore, nom offers no good reasons to go against long-established WP practice of keeping articles on colleges. Colleges are notable, full stop. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The classic circular reasoning to keep something because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past. Is there any policy-based argument? The Banner talk 15:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy-based argument is that we keep things for which there is consensus to keep. The fact that they have routinely been kept in the past is evidence for consensus so we don't have to keep rearguing the same points every time someone wakes up and thinks they're going to change everything. See WP:FENCE and start another RfC if you want to change the long-established consensus that colleges are notable and their articles are kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you have no policy-based arguments? The Banner talk 20:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: secondary school articles are normally kept to prevent overwhelming and inundating AFD with deletion discussions. Which is just what seems to be happening with JZSJ's articles. Based on the rationale that secondary articles are kept as a matter of convention, we should obviously keep university articles. Per WP:PRESERVE, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:IFITAINTBROKE, WP:IAR. – Lionel^(talk) 01:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So you prefer to keep non-notable institution based on a dodgy circular reasoning but without a policy-based background? The Banner talk 08:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for keep based on previous practice is not circular reasoning. One of the virtues of an encyclopedia is consistency. We deal with that by maintaining the status quo unless there is consensus to do otherwise. If necessary, we establish that consensus by an RfC. The most recent RfC said there was no consenus to change the practice of always keep secondary school articles. It didn't explicitly discuss universities, but whatever reasons apply to keeping high school articles, would apply all the more to universities.

True, the RfC also said there was no consensus that just referring to the original statement is commonoutcomes was not sufficient. I'm not referrring to common outcomes, but to the RfC, wich is he authority for saying there is no accepted change in the prior practice.

Additionally, there is the underlying reason for having this practice, which not that all high schools are notable, but that treating them as if they are is a compromise to avoid the many thousands of AfDs that would otherwise give essentially random results. The present AfD and the small number of subsequent AfDs, which have essentially given the same random decisions unrelated to the actual relative notability of the specific schools, is the best reason to continue the practice. Nobody is served by elaborate discussions that yield random results, neither those who wish to keep or to delete such articles.

And I mention there is another haldf to thecompromise: we do not routinely keep primary schools. If we didn['t continue to observe the compromise, we'd be debating every one of these also. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you starting those discussions when you know that is based on nothing. has there been a wiki-wide vote to determine this or is it just a local consensus among a small WikiProject? Why do you still believe in a consensus when that consensus is so often challenged? The Banner talk 08:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the consensus has gone why don't you start a wiki-wide RfC to clarify the issue instead of making time-wasting nominations like this one? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that RfC...The Banner talk 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability of colleges and universities is described as advice in an essay which is NOT a policy or guideline. Unfortunately, the essay's advice leaves us with a quandary that hinges on two assertions related to our discussion here: the first sentence in the "Notability" section, In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia; and a sentence under "Reliable sources", Self-published sources cannot comprise the majority of an article's citations, and cannot be used to establish a claim of notability. I have spent more time than I care to admit searching for reliable, independent secondary sources for this article, and only found another primary source, the founding organization, the site of a Jesuit mission in Madurai Province. As the sponsoring institution, we have to consider it as another "self-published" source. I could be wrong about that.

The college claims affiliation with Thiruvalluvar University, but that institution does not appear to list affiliation colleges individually, describing them only, "98 arts and Science college are affiliated to this university, of which 10 are government Arts and science colleges, 9 are aided Arts and science colleges, 3 are oriental title colleges, 72 are self financing Arts and Science Colleges and the remaining 4 are University Constituent colleges." Accreditation by India's National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is granted to recognized universities, not separately to "Autonomous colleges/Constituent Colleges/ Affiliated Colleges (affiliated to universities recognised by UGC as an affiliating University", so we are left with a dearth of sources to establish verifiability.

Even though I am personally satisfied that Loyola College, Vettavalam, does exist because I believe that the Jesuit Channai Mission is a credible primary source, the sourcing identified does not establish a claim of notability for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the current WP article on Thiruvalluvar University does not list any affiliated colleges individually, so even a merge with that article does not look very promising. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus as established by the last RfC is that we keep all secondary schools (and that implies upwards also). As for affiliation, almost all Indian colleges have been affiliated with one of the universities that can actually award degrees. It doesn't imply dependency. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very special reading of that RfC. The Banner talk 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not sure which RfC you're talking about, DGG, but presumably not the one in February 2017 where the main result was "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist"? For general reference, and for 192.160.216.52 in particular, here are the results of the RfC, copied straight from WP:Schooloutcomes:

The closure of this February 2017 RFC provided the following RfC nutshell results regarding the above section:

Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.
Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations.

I'm also having difficulty following your reasoning in your longer post higher up this page. If I read you correctly, you say "... [it's] not that all high schools are notable, but that treating them as if they are ...[avoids thousands of AfDs]". If that were a valid argument, why on earth would we not apply it to biographies? – think of all the AfD discussions that could be avoided! We could choose some arbitrary criterion (being dead, say), and just have a page on everyone who meets it. Or we could use our heads and apply some sensible and stringent criteria for inclusion. We do that for people, and we ought to be doing it for schools too. There are, I imagine, many millions of schools in the world (how many in China alone?); we obviously can't have an article on every one of them, and nor should we try to unless we also have something to say about them. To do that we need in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, just as we do for all other kinds of article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that's selective quoting from the nutshell, not the close. The close also said (in paragraph 3): " SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD" It furthermore said about the proposition "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" answered "Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus." Thus, there is no consensus to reject the statement. Since this would seem somewhat contradictory to other selective quotes fro the closing, the only final result is there is no consensus to change anything in our prior practice. The text in the nutshell is a not actually a representation of the actual close--this is not all that unusual in WP--there are hundreds of such contradictions, which is why to the extent that the purpose of rules is to be a guide, "the actual rules are whatever we do consistently."

With people, experience shows we can come to somewhat rational results. Most fields of biography have standards supplementary to the GNG, which permit such decisions, and there is a rough agreement-- most of the time the more important are kept and the less important are not. (though the people interested in each of the various fields tend to think their field is treated unfairly strictly, within each field the decision make sense. For schools, it depends entirely on who shows up and on how much they care: before the compromise, the results were random having no connecting to any sense. Even if one wanted to try to decide rationally, in a field where sources are scarce, the result depends if you want to argue the qualifying terms in the GNG (substantial, independent, reliable, secondary) to yield a delete or keep result--I learned very soon that in any school afd I could equally do either. I have not analyzed the few recent afds, but the results so far seem equally random. To quote the close once more, "It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special."

the current state of things seems to be that each side is trying to persist longer than the other, which I suppose can be justified by saying the people who care the most will be most persistent. Basically, we need a truce. We had one for many years, until the school deletionists decided to break it. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it may be usefull to have another RFC to see if we can get a clearer consensus. It’s been some time and we have had conversations like this on many school AfDs. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, it would be good enough when people start adhering to the present consensus (see the RfC) that school articles can be removed when the article does not show its notability. The Banner talk 05:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that people aren't "adhering to the present consensus" it may be time to start thinking about whether you misunderstand the present consensus. A consensus is by definition what people adhere to. I've been saying all along that if you all don't like SCHOOLOUTCOMES or its use in AfDs you ought to start an RfC on it rather than trying to pick off individual articles and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of violating some imaginary consensus. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* Did the submitter bother to WP:BEFORE? Egaoblai (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you bother about WP:AGF? The Banner talk 23:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, I did my research before I nominated.[reply]

What additional reliable sources have you identified, Egaoblai, that you think should have been found by a BEFORE search? I don't see that any have been mentioned here, nor that any have been added to the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful

It's not the position of the submitter or the deletionist cheerleaders to force other people to work for them. However, it is the responsibility of the AFD submitter to do thorough checks on notability. IN the case of schools, where previous consensus holds that they are generally found to be notable, the fact that the school can be proven to exist is enough to keep it from deletion, as "school outcomes" shows that in pretty much every case, notability has been shown. Good day.Egaoblai (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm laughing my ass off. Who thought Indian colleges could be so entertaining. Please relist one more time!!! lmfao – Lionel^(talk) 00:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll post a couple of JZSJ's school articles to ADF, but only if Banner promises to participate.– Lionel^(talk) 00:35, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gusman Kyrgyzbayev

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

Non-notable judoka - did not compete at the highest level. Original author contested Prod by Slatersteven. PRehse (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, as subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE and, specifically, the related criteria WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA. -The Gnome (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair he is a judo player so WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA should not apply but WP:MANOTE does. Does not meet that either.PRehse (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is currently ranked 7th in the world in his division by the IJF and finished 7th at last year's IJF world championships. In most sports those facts would be sufficient to meet WP:NSPORTS. Papaursa (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll admit to being a bit confused. I have recently seen multiple editors support articles on a 9 year old boxer and a Dutch teenager who didn't finish in the top 100 of the world youth sailing championships, but I'm the only editor who thinks finishing 7th at the adult world judo championships and a #7 world ranking is notable? I'll grant you that his being Kazakh makes finding sources difficult, but the results seem to speak for themselves--especially when I look at the notability criteria for other sports (including martial arts sports like boxing and kickboxing). Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 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 05:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he's won a couple IJF events for his weight class. I have no idea if this is the highest level or not or what. WP:MANOTE is not very helpful here, and I don't know what else to base it on. My before search came up with judo-related articles, which makes sense. Lean keep. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 9 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) 08:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oakover

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

I cannot find evidence that this building meets general notability. Only one trivial mention of the building was found on google news. The only source is only a brief overview of the building that does not establish it as particularly noteworthy. Elassint ^Hi 05:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep There are sources that appear to indicate that "Oakover" is synonymous to the office of the CM for some (have added them). It also has mention over time - it was photographed in the 19th century, photos which have been on display or are archived at the V&A and the Getty. Therefore, I think there is a hint of notability, but it needs to be solidified. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Take a look at this GBooks search and it's clear that there are plenty of sources discussing this building. Note the necessity for quotes around the single word "Oakover" to avoid interference by "oak over". 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks historic, notable per this source in article, other. Looks equivalent to United States governors' houses, c.f. List of governors' mansions in the United States a list of current and former houses almost all of which have separate articles. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic building and official residences of chief ministers are usually notable for that reason alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 13 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 Club-Mate. No objections to the merge which has already been carried out for over a week. ansh 666 08:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tschunk

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

One of countless non-notable cocktails. Existence of recipes for it does not provide notability, nor does passing mention that it was consumed at an event. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. I found only passing mentions in a small number of hacker-culture articles. It's a background, not a star. There's a 2011 book reference, but it too is a passing mention. Looks like the word itself may originate from James Joyce's Ulysses (here at Project Gutenberg): "True men. Lid Ker Cow De and Doll. Ay, ay. Like you men. Will lift your tschink with tschunk," in 1922. But that doesn't make the cocktail so named itself notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mention does not signify notability. LK (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Club-Mate (oops, I did already). --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per the merge that occurred while the article was being considered at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Club-Mate supported per my earlier !vote. Assuming that the merge sticks, just need to complete it and clean up. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:00, 9 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 19:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Sandwich Co.

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

No sign of notability. Refs are mentions or press release regurgitations. Probably a great sandwich but no notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds great. I would like a Bombay sandwich now, please. --Doncram (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Szzuk (talk) 09:40, 16 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 19:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Calio

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

There is no notable reason for this person to have an article. It looks more like a resume. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTLINKEDIN WP:NOTRESUME Acnetj (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing much in the article or on google apart from his employer and routine coverage. Szzuk (talk) 08:51, 16 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) Bobherry Talk Edits 13:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.V. (Modular Assault Vehicle)

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article - game is still in development and non-notable currently. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure I agree with that assessment. There is quite a bit of coverage (I didn't think there would be either), from Engadget.com, Gert Lush Gaming, N4G, PC GamesN, vice, and also the RPS link that is referenced in the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw those too, but they are only previews. It doesn't seem like significant or sustained coverage that would confer notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure I am doing this correctly. I had just stubbed out the page, as I am very new to this all.

The game is released, in an early access stage. It also was recently named as a finalist in the indieDB top 100 games for 2017 ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerroger3782 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As others have shown, there's plenty of RS coverage for this game. Phediuk (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is enough coverage on google and in this afd to satisfy gng. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 16 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 19:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirographe

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

Doesn't seem to have been particularly notable, even during its time period. ~~No mention in History of photography, despite that article being the best place to contain such information.~~ Many issue tags, including one disputing accuracy whilst no searches seem to suggest this is worthy of its own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: This relates to cinematography rather than photography. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears to be cinematography not photography, there are hits on google but i'm undecided about whether it is notable, i think it was probably a standard that didn't get widely accepted. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you seem to be right about it being cinematography.. i'll amend my opening paragraph. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 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 19:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some references to be found at google books like this one https://books.google.com/books?id=hFxwX-dM008C&lpg=PA167&dq=Mirographe&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q=Mirographe&f=false. I think it is notable enough for inclusion. NerudaPoet (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The book proves it existed around its time, which isn't disputed, but which part of it establishes any degree of notability or importance? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 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 03:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seven references added. It is described in numerous publications around 1900-1902. Most sources were in French, which I read.104.163.158.37 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refs added since the start of the afd are good. Szzuk (talk) 20:09, 11 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. – Joe (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muin Bek Hafeez

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 12 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 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mischa Rick van Geelen

AfDs for this article:

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

Being "consulted by Dutch-language media" as a 15-year-old hacker isn't a claim of notability.

Possibly a G4; there are some statements regarding events after the last AfD, but their references don't mention the subject of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hacker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article, notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 08:46, 16 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) 08:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congolese Australians

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

I have no idea what the notability guidelines are here, but one statistical document and one person from the DRC who moved to Australia doesn't seem sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do understand the rationale of this proposal. The flow of people from the Congo is as important as many other groups of immigrants. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are three more references I found without even trying: [33] [34] [35]. There are many more. More than sufficient to support a more in-depth article, quite sufficient for WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are some OR problems with the initial set of references, but there are plenty available, both mentioned already and a lot of others. The topic is certainly significant enough with equivalents. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes notability. M A A Z T A L K 21:01, 12 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 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbor (company)

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

I don't believe WP:CORPDEPTH is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a startup, refs don't support notability and coverage on google is meagre, its quite a good idea though, it is peer to peer storage, i.e. someone will store your stuff in their shed (i think). Szzuk (talk) 09:18, 16 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 consensus is that the sources available indicate that the subject is notable. Some editors qualified their support for keeping this article, stating that since the event occurred only recently, its lasting significance is still uncertain; as a result, another discussion on the suitability of this article may be appropriate in the future (but not immediately after this one). Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Burgwedel stabbing

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable event. The aftermath section is about a Facebook post by the city. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS Acnetj (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds like news, reads like news, and feels like news; safe to say it is news, but Wikipedia is not news. Anyone who claims crimes do not somehow apply should read our criteria for events: A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Attempting to claim RAPID--the only actual "rationale" to keep--assumes there will be notability in the future and that is obvious crystalballing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) This "spate" or string of knife attacks don't make this independently notable. But I am a realist and know some editors like breaking news, especially on very certain types of crimes. So, as with other crimes, I will wait when RAPID can't be used as an excuse and a more legitimate discussion can take place--either back at AFD or with a selective merge.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having expressed you opinion that this crime is not notable, I advise you not to start a merge on that talk page in a few months because it can look like an an attempt to delete an article you DONOTLIKE stealthily. An article that has been through a contested AdD should probably be taken back to AfD if an editor feels compelled to contest notability a 2nd time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, as you commonly say, WP:AGF. If you think that is the purpose of a merge discussion, you clearly do not understand the process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I do. In contested subject areas, articles are merged, then specifics and sources are deleted, text reduced, and an editor makes a comment like: ("this is not "list of crimes committed by individual immigrants")[36] as he deletes the material (crime) from the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here I haven't even heard about this crime. Tragic and sad for the victim and her family, but it was at most regional, if not local, news. So here I would advocate a delete. --ObersterGenosse (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nationwide coverage, notable politicians commented on it, still ongoing coverage (media reported only 2 days ago).[37][38][39]--Greywin (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, excellent example of WP:NOTNEWS. —Kusma (t·c) 13:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mind that "Neue Presse" and "thelocal" are local news only. "Neue Presse" explicitly is centered around the city of Hannover and its surroundings to which Burgwedel belongs. --ObersterGenosse (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly wrong indeed, "The Local Germany" reports news from all over Germany (as the cited article itself shows). Neue Presse may focus on Northern Germany a bit (with news from all over Germany), but FAZ, n-tv, Welt are clearly nationwide coverage. But I suppose this AfD discussion is more about "for that which must not, cannot be."--Greywin (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Local is a well-regarded newspaper that covers Germany in English, read by ex-pats.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much coverage here to delete, I suggest Merge and Redirect to a new subhead to be created for the purpose at Immigration and crime in Germany#Knife attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC) changing iVote below, per more ONGOING coverage.[reply]

I support the subhead in the Immigration and crime article, but meanwhile this one here is much too long to merge (additions by user:XavierItzM). Change my vote to Speedy Keep after the additions, continuing coverage, article is now significantly expanded.--Greywin (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom is defective. The nom says the event is not notable. If it were not notable, it would not have received coverage from, as included in the article: 1. n-tv; 2. Die Welt; 3. Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung; 4. Bild; 5. The Local; 6. Focus (German magazine); 7. Tz (newspaper); 8. Neue Presse (on the German Wikipedia); 8. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Furthermore, if it were not notable, it would not have received continuous coverage on, as included in the article: 25 March, 26 March, 31 March, 28 March, 27 March, 29 March, 7 April, 2 April, 10 April, 12 April. Furthermore, the nom says the aftermath is something about Facebook. The nom is wrong. The aftermath covers: (1). The national debate about immigration sparked in Germany as a result of this attack (with three WP:RS); (2). The response from the State Prime Minister; (3). The hate speech investigation; (4). The exploitation of the attack for electoral purposes by the third largest political party in Germany, i.e., Alternative for Germany. Objections raised by others include that this was a "regional" event. This is erroneous. If it were regional, why is it being covered by the following not local media: I- n-tv; II- Die Welt; III- The Local; IV- Focus; V- Tz (a Munich/Bavaria paper in the South, here covering a Hannover event in the Northwest); VI- Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The claim of "regional/local" is entirely disproven. The final objection is WP:NOTNEWS. This claim for deletion is based on a misreading of policy. The policy is aimed against entertainment news. Specifically, WP:NOTNEWS reads "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This case on the contrary is a notable crime which has fueled a national debate (specifically: "knife attacks further fuels debate over refugees and violence"^[5]; "The deed has triggered a political debate on juvenile delinquency and the integration of refugees"^[6]). Besides, this is clearly not "routine news reporting" on "announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is routine news reporting a major crime and therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. I can only recommend re-reading the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Finally, the unsound arguments in favor of NOTNEWS are trumped by WP:NCRIME, which reads «Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act», so keeping this article ought to be adjudicated by default, as clearly the coverage has been extensive and continuous. XavierItzm (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources brought by User:XavierItzm and the fact that Youth knifing spate alarms German police unions/a-43225871. Mreover, he growing concern over this and similar attacks in the recent "spate" makes this a matter of of WP:RAPID. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for instance the Focus article is a national-level publication. Also, the "regional news" referred to above refers to regions with 8 million people (Lower Saxony). 8 million is more than the population of Norway or Denmark. AadaamS (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continuing wide national coverage, some international coverage - meeting WP:NCRIME at this time (possibly qualified with WP:RAPID - as we do not know the state of future continuing coverage, but coverage up to now merits inclusion).Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have struck out my "delete", thanks to above editors and their additions to article, it is shown to meet the WP:EVENTCRIT. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ http://www.indiedb.com/groups/2017-indie-of-the-year-awards/top100
^ "String of knife attacks further fuels debate over refugees and violence". The Local. 27 March 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
^ "24-YEAR-OLD STABBED BY TEENAGERS: THE VICTIM". Tag 24 (in German). 29 March 2018. Retrieved 15 April 2018. The deed has triggered a political debate on juvenile delinquency and the integration of refugees.

Keep something meets WP:GNG here. It could be this article should be merged into and redirected towards 2018 German stabbings or even knife crime in Germany. Or, per WP:RAPID, maybe it'll be alright as a standalone piece. But the information here should be retained in one form or another and once the dust settles merging can be discussed without heading to AfD. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.11.149.25 (talk) 23:10, 16 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 19:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Zain Al-Deen Johnson

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

Notability concerns. The main claim of notability appears to be converting to Islam, and the references are local and border on human-interest coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Six news items - in the Daily Mail, The Sunshine Coast Daily, and maybe the New Zealand Herald (in a list) - doesn't not equate to SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC; very little shows up in searches, certainly not enough to support an notability although His birth name did show up on a leaked terrorism watch list in 2011 [40]. Article appears to be PROMO for a preacher created by a new editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also with this name, Sheikh Zain Al-Deen Johnson, it is just harder to find anything that support notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:21, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Levin (author)

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

A non-notable author. Authoring a few op-eds in prominent publications is not sufficient for notability. Clear puffery; the books listed are all the same title, just in different languages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not just an author, but even so he's published all over the globe in numerous sources...

References (including some that were used, I didn't want to overlink in the article): 1. Konflikte zwischen einer weltlichen und einer religiösen Weltordnung, Zürcher Studien zum Privatrecht, Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag 1991 ^[1] 2. University of Zurich, Europe Institute ^[2] ^[3] 8 May 2018 3. Diplomatic Academy of Vienna ^[4] 18 April 2018 4. Political Leadership Crisis and Failed Diplomacy – Correlation or Causation? ^[5] Daniel Levin at SOAS ^[6], 25 October 2017 5. Diplomacy and Executive Power: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly ^[7] Chatham House, London, 4 May 2017 6. Cambridge Union ^[8] 16 February 2017 7. Handelszeitung: Daniel Levin: Hinter den Kulissen arbeitet man wirksamer ^[9] 26 March 2018 8. Tages Anzeiger: Daniel Levin: Inkompetenz ist in der Politik förderlich ^[10] 10 March 1018 9. 92Y: Daniel Levin in Conversation with Daniel Kahneman: ^[11] 10. Varsity: Daniel Levin: How we shape generations of leaders ^[12] 10 February 2017 11. BBC: Where next for Europe? ^[13] 3 February 2017 12. China Daily: The rule of law shall guard the guard ^[14] 22 October 2014 13. CCTV America: US debt crisis a man-made disaster ^[15] 16 October 2013 14. CCTV America: Chinese future economy ^[16] 28 February 2012 15. CCTV America: Daniel Levin on Eurozone crisis ^[17] 5 April 2012 16. CCTV America: Daniel Levin on Merkel’s China visit ^[18] 31 August 2012 17. CCTV America: Daniel Levin on China’s state-owned enterprises: ^[19] 14 November 2012 18. Fréttablaðið; Iceland: ^[20] 2 April 2012 19. Portafolio: Un empujón a la educación financiera ^[21] 7 December 2011 20. China Daily: Financial literacy and the wealth gap ^[22] 6 November 2012 21. China Daily: High time for a two-list approach ^[23] 24 February 2012 22. Revista RS 39: Educación financiera, una herramienta de la responsabilidad ^[24] 23. Portafolio : La educación financiera ^[25] 17 April 2011 24. Khaleej Times: Courting the next generation: ^[26] 21 April 2011 25. Khaleej Times: Diplomacy is dead ^[27] 13 February 2011 26. Morgunblaðið, Iceland: ^[28] 21 April 2010

Note: By comparison, there's another writer by the same name with also only one book, and significantly less references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Levin_(writer) - why is his page okay but not this one? Note: It sounds like I should delete the other languages of the book, even though they might be useful to people who don't speak English as a first language? KungFuJosh (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Update: I removed the other language listings of the book, and added them as references for the original book listing. I assume that should be better. KungFuJosh (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here: [41] is a gNews search on "Nothing but a Circus" + Levin. A profile in the Jewish Chronicle, reviews in The Guardian, The Times, Daily Express, and more stuff more than suffices to pass WP:AUTHOR. Article needs a lot of work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Jewish Chronicle profile from which a proper bio can be sourced: Meet Daniel Levin, and a world of self-interest].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that he's a likeable guy, some bio details are corroborated by this review of his book in The Spectator: The vanity and ineptitude of the global elite (by one of them). there are reviews in other languages, too. Der Bund: Inkompetenz ist in der Politik förderlich. He sails past WP:AUTHOR # 3.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 17 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 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Tree Arts Center

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

Fails WP:NORG A promotional article for an arts center in a small community. Rogermx (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 06:53, 9 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)} 15:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzya

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

Not notable, seems to be discontinued software from years ago. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete discontinued software, one ref in the article to its sourceforge page, last updated 4 years ago, nothing on google. Szzuk (talk) 08:41, 16 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 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inky (email client)

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

It is no longer email client software. It is now a startup which appears below the WP:NCORP threshold IMHO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify in Draft:Inky Technology Corporation and delete this This should have become a profile of the current company, not maintained as an article about a low-popularity mobile email client with little sourcing. In this state though it still has the baggage it has as an email client article, so a WP:TNT approach as a draft article (with the scrutiny a draft has to go under, thus this isn't an auto-keep) is for the best. Nate • (chatter) 03:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established, a 3 sentence article. Refs are 1 primary 1 unreliable, nothing on google of note. Szzuk (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom: Article's main contribiutors were Mtully95 (talk · contribs · count) and Mabdam (talk · contribs · count), both of them have had no other contributions of substance. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:54, 16 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. I have based the close on the opinion of the established editors and the fact that the sourcing has not been shown to meet the GNG and has been challenged credibly. I'll happily userfy for an established editor Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Grie

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

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

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

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:NARTIST. I have also AfD'd his Interartcenter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interartcenter (2nd nomination). This BLP is a COI and promotional in tone. Agora Gallery is a well known Vanity Gallery. Both books are self published at Createspace [42] and Lulu (URL is blacklisted by Wikipedia, so can't put it here, but you can search for it). I could not verify the claim that "His works presented in the State Russian Museum." I found this blog-like page with photos on it [43], and a passing reference here [44] neither of which I think establish N. I did look through onesearch and found the cognitive science article mentioned (Cialone, C., Tenbrink, T., & Spiers, H. (2018). Sculptors, Architects, and Painters Conceive of Depicted Spaces Differently. Cognitive Science, 42(2), 524-553.) which isn't about his art, but rather uses his art (amongst others) to understand the science of depicting space; which is to say I don't think it establishes WP:N. Nor does inclusion of an illustration in a high school textbook. Theredproject (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an obvious case of narcissistic article syndrome, aka Vanispamcruftisement. Notability does not exist here as there is none in published RS.104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to ask User talk:104.163.158.37, to abstain from such a colorful language as “narcissistic article syndrome”. You are better than this. Thank you for your consideration! Artsgrie (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTINSTAGRAM Acnetj (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:ARTIST it has 91,400 search results in google[45] etc. If it is not WP:N, who is? Please see additional sources and information [46] 73.156.11.154 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of two SPA accounts that geolocate to Naples Florida.104.163.140.141 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not prohibited to add, edit or correct the subject info for WP:BLP. It is not a crime, is it?

Comments

1. About - I could not verify the claim "His works presented in the State Russian Museum." If something is not available online, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Would you like me to email you the copy of original certificates of the museum acceptance?

2. “and a passing reference here [3]” the Italian magazine Robot has George Grie pictures on the covers of issues #65 #66 #67, [47] in 2011-2012 and an interview[48]. Please visit artist’s website for more reliable info.

3. Illustrated History, School Textbook, Denmark 2013 March, Bonnier Publications [49]

4. Bloggers 5ème, School Textbook, France 2017, French scholastic publishing house DIFUSION-EMDL [50]

5. BBC News TV, UK 2010 January. The number of George Grie's artworks have been featured in, ClickBits: tech talk with LJ Rich. [51]

6. ArtWorks, School Visual Textbook, Canada 2011 February, Emond Montgomery Publications [52]

and the list goes on... Thank you.Artsgrie(talk) 20:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is a well-known and established person. There was a discussion about this article WP:N about 10 years ago, and it has been approved. Please see archives. I am surprised we are doing that again. Unfortunately, the WP:RS list has nothing or very little to do with fine-art. There are plenty of other references about the artist in the Net.Aliciawoo (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG , 96.91.84.14 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second of two SPA accounts that geolocate to Naples Florida.104.163.140.141 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG, since here is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and WP:NARTIST since we have no sources that establish that the work is in (multiple) notable collections, has been shown in significant exhibitions, and there are no monographs. cannatamusic.com, kayakonline.nl, magellansongs.com, myspace.com, neosurrealismart.com, voyager-australia.com and winterineden.com are all decidedly unimpressive sources. The Cognitive Science ref from research gate is clearly not about the subject. Vexations (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New references have been added to the article as we speakArtsgrie (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Artsgrie is referring to

The BBC source doesn't work for me. I get an error message that says "This content doesn't seem to be working". I'm fairly certain that discogs is not a suitable source. Even if it did serve to verify that Grie created something, that doesn't help to establish notability. It concerns me that the discogs page links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Grie and http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B6_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5 which I see as indications of professionalism. The robot covers show that indeed, something that is very likely Grie's work was on the cover, but again, it fails to establish notability. Perhaps this attempt at summarizing WP:N is instructive: Unless more than two people who have no connection to you write an in-depth book or article about you in a publication that has a reputation for reliability and fact-checking, you are not notable. Vexations (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this BBC screenshot will be helpful to you. [53]Artsgrie (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me cite WP:N Article content does not determine notability- “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” .. so your statement “you are not notable” looks to me more like a personal insult! And a bit more WP:N citing …Notability requires verifiable evidence - ”Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally” There is no mentioning of two “in-depth book” there. In my opinion the article has plenty of diversified references “generally”. Thank you.Artsgrie (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote: "Unless (long conditional) you are not notable." That's not an insult, and there is nothing wrong with not being notable. Please stick to providing policy-based arguments to demonstrate that notability has been established by, well whatever you think works in your favour from the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and subject specific notability guidelines such as WP:ARTIST. I am trying to tell you that "plenty of diversified references" is not such an argument. If you really need me to do this I will go through all your sources and explain why they fail to establish notability. Let me know when you've added all the sources you wanted to add. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add more references and I would be delighted to hear your opinion. I did not do that before since I considered the existing ones had been more than enough. I would appreciate your help!Artsgrie (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am surprised to see this article was selected for deletion. I’ve been coming back to this page for years now to see news and updates on George Grie’s art. He is an amazing artist and deserves to have a page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.32.60 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if possible, good artist good info 64.134.24.210 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grie is a very good artist, the article is informative and has a lot of references and external links. Artist deserves to be listed in Wiki. Snark illustrator (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer please note the preponderance of SPA/IP accounts making WP:ILIKEIT arguments that elide the fact that there are no WP:RS. Please also note that Artsgrie is COI SPA, and Aliciawoo is a SPA creator of this article and also the now deleted article about Grie's Interartcenter - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interartcenter (2nd nomination) Theredproject (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m impressed by the number of references provided, i.g. Canada France Dutch school textbooks. Maybe, they are not strictly “academic”, but not many BLP artists who might provide as such. I think it is WP:N and ARTIST GNG compatible.69.247.58.60 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence of passing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. There are no enough source information to establish notability as per WP:GNG and no data at all, that my indicate passing WP:ARTIST.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clean up & add RS nice list of CD bands’ covers it has. Agree with .69.247.58.60 they are not academic per se, but still...RS and some of them are my favorite London Symphony Orchestra for ex. I vote to keep! ;) 96.80.165.185 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have looked both in the article, and on the artist's website, and done a (cursory) Google search. While Mr Grie has a good publicity machine going, and his art has clearly been used in many places, the only source which appears at first glance to deal with his life in a significant manner is the Mikkola article (at the bottom of the reference list). By our standards, *one* such source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG; this is not an arbitrary requirement, it is what is needed to write a meaningful article. Furthermore, in googling the author name, the journal name (Journal of Anomalous Sciences(??)), and the author name, it transpires that Mr Grie is an advisor to the journal (see p17 of http://thejournalofanomalousscience.com/JAS/Jan-Mar_2012/files/assets/downloads/publication.pdf ). Therefore, this source is not independent. Therefore it doesn't count either, and WP:GNG is not met. My further attempts to find WP:RS were complicated due to the very high volume of promotional material about the subject online, which also increases the likelihood that efforts to have an article here are likely promotionally motivated, and it will be impossible to build and maintain an impartial, nonpromotional article. Therefore delete. Martinp (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough research. There is only one mistake that I see. The artist has never been affiliated with the Journal of Anomalous Sciences in any way besides giving an interview and providing imagery. The same applies to other articles such as Science Geeks magazine, South Korea [54] , Welt Der Wunder, Germany [55], Oceanside Museum of Art [56], Muy Interesante science magazine, Spain Madrid [57], etc. Artsgrie (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As regards JAS/Mikkola, why is he listed, then, as a "Journal Advisor" on p17 of the issue of the journal that I linked above? As regards the others, they are -- like many of the other listed sources -- examples where his art is used, not significant (and independent etc) articles *about* the artist. I'm sorry, but overall there are too many warning signs and not enough substance here to retain a wp article. 1) COI by an important article contributor, 2) general strong tone of self-promotion in the plethora of web mentions of this individual, 3) overuse of brief mentions of the artist and pointers where his art was merely used (rather than he as an individual discussed) in the references of the article, 4) vanishingly small number of sources that pass even a preliminary filter for WP:RS and establishing notability, 5) the single somewhat promising one being a niche publication with unclear reliability and notability itself, 6) strong concerns about independence of that source from the artist, 7) single purpose accounts voting keep in the AFD discussion. I am left with a strong taste of a nest of self-promotion including this artist, with little to go by for WP:GNG. Reaffirm Delete. Martinp (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Draftify I would like to voice my opinion. Wiki is the project that was made by the people for the people. In a way it is a ‘’who is who’” and “what is what” of the planet. And this is a beauty of it. One can quickly find in Wiki information that cold never be found in other encyclopedias. That applies to thousands of Wiki’s stubs with no references whatsoever, but still useful. In my opinion, formalizing wiki to a “club of honor” will make it no different from other encyclopedias that nobody reeds. Cheers! 165.225.32.64 (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication is useful if there is some prospect that more and better sources can be discovered. Per Wikipedia:Userfication an article can be userfied if the material is worth keeping because it has potential to be useful at some point — they may just need more work, or more time. This article has been around since 2006 and has been edited 357 times. It's not as if this hasn't had enough time. If better sources exists, they should have been found by now. Vexations (talk) 14:23, 18 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 19:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interartcenter

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:CORP or WP:CREATIVE. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Theredproject (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should add that other than Kyle1278 the only people to participate in the 1st AfD in 2009 were the articles creator, and three IP address editors. No substantive arguments were presented in that discussion, hence my comfort bringing it here again. --Theredproject (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more: I have also nominated the creator of this website George Grie for AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Grie --Theredproject (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11, if possible. The website described is a pure advertising medium. On its first page is this: "Make Money with online clip-art & photo sharing gallery. Monetize digital art: Photography 2D 3D Clipart Digital-Paintings Illustrations Drawings and more... If you have digital art images, photos, and graphic design 2d 3d clipart, you have a great chance to make some extra income flow while sharing your creativity."104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Interartcenter website has seized to exist. However, it doesn’t mean it never existed, been popular, and had thousands of users. Are we going to get rid of all historic materials? How is it WP:G11 if the site has nothing to promote to? It has to be cleaned & updated, not deleted. Why don’t you do that rather then bluntly clicking the delete button and knocking down somebody’s work?Artsgrie (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Theredproject Is there a particular number of people that you have in mind who disagrees with you? Or it just your opinion that matters?Artsgrie (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute Vexations (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right Vexations. That is what I was trying to point out in my comment. Thank you!Artsgrie (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find that the four online sources, http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/interartcenter.net, http://siteanalytics.compete.com/fantasyartdesign.com/, http://interartcenter.net/interartcenter/ and http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/fantasyartdesign.com/ do anything to establish notability per the applicable guidelines at WP:NCORP. Vexations (talk) 17:14, 15 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Ulz

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

Ulz lacks notability. The top google hit is his own website, which is also the source for the only reference citation in the article. The second google hit is this article. A check of the sources available above yields commercial websites selling his CDs, and zero dedicated articles, even in his hometown newspaper. And to quote the article itself, "Ulz did not achieve lasting fame as a folk singer/songwriter..." Ergo, delete. Tapered (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "zero dedicated articles, even in his hometown newspaper" claim is false - just look at the references! StefanWirz (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the various reference links on this page yield no dedicated articles, as stated. The article's references are not used as citations. Interesting. The only reference that I could run down using Google Books, Steve Martin's "Born Standing Up," mentions him as the MC in a nondescript nightclub—not the stuff of WP:N. I'm also amending the nomination to quote the article itself! Tapered (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The gentleman is recently deceased, but I'm sorry to say that his notability is indirect at best. The article's main source is Mr. Ulz's own promotional website, which was an operation to promote appearances and sell merchandise. All of the other references are to books that are overwhelmingly about more famous people and which mention Mr. Ulz briefly as a peripheral background figure. Of his many co-written songs, he can be credited accordingly on those that were recorded by notable musicians, but he has received very little reliable coverage as a songwriter, performer, toymaker, etc. in his own right. Unfortunately he did not achieve enough independent notability to merit his own Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:05, 12 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)} 15:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echo music blog

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

This article's references do not talk about the subject at hand and has facts and stats that can't be verified but a self publication of the author who happens to be the owner of the site so i dont think it meets the notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icem4k (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. There are several music blogs called "Echo" online, such as the music blog of the Liverpool Echo newspaper, etc. No significant coverage of this one in WP:RS online, and no indication of the notability of the awards won. Highly promotional at the moment, and edit history strongly suggests sockpuppetry. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NWEB. It's just a blog – taking out the sources from the blog itself, and the citations linked to Alexa and Feedspot which are just web ranking listings, not a single one of the other sources actually mentions the blog anywhere or verifies any of the claims regarding its standing. Its Facebook page has 224 followers and its Twitter site a whopping 98 followers. No evidence whatsoever of notability, and pure WP:PROMO. Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A long way below the standard required for notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly promotional or as Wikipedia says Unambiguous advertising or promotion. ChaloNiZambia (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nomination was not about the article being promotional, but about its WP:Notability. A promotional article can be fixed, rather than deleted. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mighty Glen Boss why was this sandbox deleted i say again SANDBOX Mukandii. It was deleted for (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) why wasn't it just fixed, rather than be deleted. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained at WP:CSD#G11: I'm guessing the sandbox needed a complete rewrite, although I can't see its content. It's not uncommon to see companies pasting their brochures verbatim to Wikipedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120, ChaloNiZambia, QuiteUnusual, and The Mighty Glen: aren't Alexa and Feedspot websites? your reasons are not making any sense. Listen in Zambia, blogging is a new thing so don't expect a blog to be mentioned in the BBC article just like that or have a citation from MTV. I guess all i am trying to say is we use what we could find. You people are busy degrading the blog and yet you have the same articles with less sources and promotional in nature.I think its high time we started improving articles and not nominating for deletion even whats not supposed to just because you didn't write it. And how can one surely compare ECHOMUSICBLOG to Liverpool Echo?Megatech15 (talk) 00:19, 13 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.

[BurraFestivals1981-1] Rani Burra; India. Directorate of Film Festivals (1981). Looking back, 1896-1960. Directorate of Film Festivals, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Retrieved 13 April 2018.

[GroupWeinbaum2008-2] Alys Eve The Modern Girl around the World Research Group; Alys Eve Weinbaum; Lynn M. Thomas (3 December 2008). The Modern Girl Around the World: Consumption, Modernity, and Globalization. Duke University Press. pp. 157, 158, 162. ISBN 0-8223-8919-3. Retrieved 13 April 2018.

[3] [1]

[4] [2]

[5] [3]

[6] ttp://www.indiedb.com/groups/2017-indie-of-the-year-awards/top100

[7] "String of knife attacks further fuels debate over refugees and violence". The Local. 27 March 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018.

[8] "24-YEAR-OLD STABBED BY TEENAGERS: THE VICTIM". Tag 24 (in German). 29 March 2018. Retrieved 15 April 2018. The deed has triggered a political debate on juvenile delinquency and the integration of refugees.

[9] ttps://www.amazon.com/Konflikte-zwischen-weltlichen-religio%CC%88sen-Rechtsordnung/dp/3725528683/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

[10] ttp://www.eiz.uzh.ch/weiterbildungen-und-veranstaltungen-des-eiz/veranstaltungsdetails/?tx_seminars_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=259

[11] ttp://www.eiz.uzh.ch/uploads/tx_seminars/Flyer_Daniel_Levin.pdf

[12] ttps://www.da-vienna.ac.at/en/Events/MoreInformation/Id/1058/Alles-nur-ein-Zirkus-brFehltritte-unter-Machtigen

[13] ttps://www.soas.ac.uk/cisd/events/25oct2017-political-leadership-crisis-and-failed-diplomacy--correlation-or-causation.html

[14] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGrHaepw9wA&t=2106s

[15] ttps://www.chathamhouse.org/event/diplomacy-and-executive-power-good-bad-and-ugly

[16] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUF_kMleGCk&feature=youtu.be

[17] ttps://www.handelszeitung.ch/node/147574?amp=1

[18] ttps://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ausland/standard/inkompetenz-ist-in-der-politik-foerderlich/story/19976802

[19] ttp://92yondemand.org/daniel-levin-daniel-kahneman-misadventures-among-powerful

[20] ttps://www.varsity.co.uk/news/12097

[21] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04qx84r

[22] ttp://www.lfsg.org/Portals/0/China%20Daily_2014%2010%2022%20The%20rule%20of%20law%20shall%20guard%20the%20guards%20by%20Daniel%20Levin.pdf

[23] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfWBUawS4Fs

[24] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfWBUawS4Fs

[25] ttp://english.cntv.cn/program/bizasiaamerica/20120405/110099.shtml

[26] ttp://english.cntv.cn/program/bizasiaamerica/20120831/102711.shtml

[27] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN30FXDk2QA

[28] ttp://www.lfsg.org/Portals/0/files/Frettabladid_20120402.pdf

[29] ttp://www.lfsg.org/Portals/0/files/Portafolio_20111207_Un%20empuj%C3%B3n%20a%20la%20educaci%C3%B3n%20financiera.pdf

[30] ttp://www.lfsg.org/Portals/0/files/China%20Daily_20121106_Financial%20literacy%20and%20the%20wealth%20gap.pdf

[31] ttp://www.lfsg.org/Portals/0/files/China%20Daily_2012%2004%2024_High%20time%20for%20a%20two-list%20approach%20by%20Daniel%20Levin.pdf

[32] ttp://www.lfsg.org/Portals/0/files/Revista%20RS%20No.%2039_%20Educacion%20financiera_Interview%20Daniel%20Levin.pdf

[33] ttp://www.lfsg.org/Portals/0/files/Portafolio_2012.04.17_La%20educati%C3%B3n%20financiera%20no%20es%20para%20posicionar%20la%20marca.pdf

[34] ttps://www.khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/courting-the-next-generation

[35] ttps://www.khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/diplomacy-is-dead

[36] ttp://www.lfsg.org/Portals/0/files/news/Morgunbladid_2010_04_21.pdf

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]