User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:35, 6 May 2018

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 14:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Super-Max	6 years ago	1	1935	0	3254.05
The Pritzker Estate	6 years ago	3	3278	0	2486.64
Craig Handley	6 years ago	3	3383	0	2404.97
Skittish / Rockity Roll	6 years ago	2	4349	0	597.39
Billy Greenwood	6 years ago	2	3993	0	451.89
St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)	6 years ago	0	2867	1	438.31
Kalyani Vallath	6 years ago	0	4212	1	438.06
Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara	6 years ago	0	2162	0	419.08
Renato Vercelli	6 years ago	0	1965	0	411.59
Jeff Kassel	6 years ago	0	1944	0	410.38
Tamel de Pablos	6 years ago	0	1257	0	406.81
Peter Van den Bossche	6 years ago	1	4697	2	403.23
Siegfried Lüthy	6 years ago	0	1711	0	401.11
Romaine Waite	6 years ago	0	2278	0	394.73
Anne Boulton	6 years ago	0	2177	0	391.9
John Alden Milne	6 years ago	0	3386	0	391.52
Tony Byrd	6 years ago	1	3038	1	388.59
Tony Clay	6 years ago	1	3021	1	388.19
Sani Aliyu	6 years ago	1	2513	1	388.1
Robert Toth (3rd nomination)	6 years ago	1	3877	1	388.09
Hertford British Hospital Charity	6 years ago	1	3212	1	388.08
DAV foundation	6 years ago	1	4918	1	387.99
Walter Hus	6 years ago	1	6280	2	382.95
Brown University traditions	6 years ago	1	3217	0	373.34
Martynas Linkevičius	6 years ago	1	2912	1	373.04

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Super-Max

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

I am nominating this page for deletion because its language indicates it is a self prompting article by the organization themselves. The user who created the page first created his username with the exact name of organization. It is also have lack of references. सुमित सिंह (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @सुमित सिंह: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 20:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete Self-promotion which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Septrillion (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has not been advanced in the nomination, and no delete !votes are present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The Pritzker Estate

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

This is a private home and, unfortunately, this article is creating unwanted attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitwalked (talk • contribs) 20:21, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Nominating account has zero other edits. I have fixed the nomination, but I will note the the listed justification is not a valid reason to delete the article. --Finngall ^talk 20:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep If you build a house this lavish and this big, the press does take notice. And because the press has taken notice, the article will be KEPT at Wikipedia. As the Wall Street Journal noted in an discussion of this "49,300-square-foot House that) boasts amenities like a bowling alley, hairdressing area and gym," and other, similar very, very large mansions entitled Living Very Large, "One obvious drawback of building big: unwanted attention. 'nuff said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep The nomination advances no rationale for deletion and the coverage demonstrates WP:NOTABILITY beyond any reasonable doubt. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly large, prominent and significant enough for notability. The nominator's reasoning has no basis in any policy or guideline for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep - No policy reason given for deletion. Septrillion (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Craig Handley

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

I am the subject of this Wikipedia entry and both my family and I have been distressed by the vandalism recently committed, on this entry. The vandalism was abusive toward myself, my wife and our three children and had the potential to cause damage to my professional reputation.

Therefore, I respectfully request that my Wikipedia entry be deleted as soon as possible, in order to prevent a reoccurrence of such harmful behavior.

Thank you,

Craig Handley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiggarethhandley (talk • contribs) 23:31, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Comment Fixing the nomination--the AfD tag was applied by an IP user whose intent looks similar to the user above, but the remaining steps were not followed. --Finngall ^talk 20:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete the level of his work is way below the level to be clearly notable. I see no reason to have this article, especially against the subjects own wishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete Qualifies for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and nothing is gained by preserving. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete: On the one hand, I don't give a rat's ass as to whether a Wikipedia article can damage someone's professional reputation: no doubt the things said in Roman Polanski's, Harvey Weinstein's, Brett Ratner's and Kevin Spacey's articles aren't doing them any favors. On the other, if this came up for AfD on its own merits, it'd probably be deleted. No reason why not. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mike_Doughty#Solo_discography. Two weeks since the initial AfD and one week since relisting, though my recommendation was to delete we have some community consensus to redirect. I will complete that process. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Skittish / Rockity Roll

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

A budget compilation of two previous albums that both have their own articles. This package actually has some reliable reviews: [1] and [2], but they discuss the two original albums in succession while only briefly mentioning this double package. Those and all other sources are more relevant for the two previous album articles. This double package has little or no notability in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Skittish (album). No independent notability, but still a viable search term, and worth of a mention in a "release and promotion" type section of either/both releases. Technically it could redirect to either release, but album's (Skittish) tend to be more popular/recognizeable than EPs (Rockity Roll) so Skittish may make more sense. (I couldn't really verify it by page views alone though - Skittish averages 0-9 page views a day, while Rockity Roll averages 0-8 page views. - neither are exactly setting Wikipedia on fire with page views...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Mike_Doughty#Solo_discography No evidence of independent notability and redirecting to one or the other of the included albums seems less helpful than tot he discography. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - As the nominator I think Eggishorn's suggestion is a good one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that redirect target too. Either way. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Billy Greenwood

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

Does the appearance, for one season, as a judge on Nashville Star make this subject notable on his own? Subject has been a part of numerous radio stations across the United States, but he was not a featured personality (a la Ryan Seacrest, Bobby Bones, etc). His single season as a judge on Nashville Star doesn't seem to meet the standard for notability, in my opinion. It should also be noted that the bulk of the article appears to have been written by Billy Greenwood himself. If nothing else, we have a major COI issue here. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 19:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I fixed the AfD. ansh 666 05:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. It's been quite some time since I've edited WP and I'm only barely getting used to the formatting, etc again. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable radio personality with no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutral I nominated the article for the purposes of establishing consensus, but I do not necessarily believe it should be deleted. As someone that spent 15+ years in the radio industry, I know who the subject is, by name, and know that he has been on many iHeartMedia radio stations over the last decade or more, but I still struggle with the question of, "Does that make him notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia?" Moreover, I know the subject personally, so I do not feel that I should cast a !vote in either direction. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. This is part of a group of articles created by a SPA on hospitals owned by CHI Franciscan Health. DocumentError (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete - unless someone can give sources to meet criteria, WP:NHOSPITALS which currently there's none. "A single author or publisher counts as only one source, regardless of the number of publications by this person. Routine coverage and passing mentions (such as "The victim was taken to E. Normous Medical Center" or "Dr Smith of Smallville Hospital, said...") do not count. Nearly all hospitals, regardless of size, and most medical clinics and related organizations will have been the subject of at least one in-depth article in their local newspaper. In practice, large, regional hospitals will almost always meet all of these standards, but some smaller hospitals and many clinics will not. Hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name. Additionally, if the independent sources available to you would not permit you to write more than one or two paragraphs, then it may be preferable to add that information to a larger article, with appropriate redirects." Hence, fails WP:GNG also. --Quek157 (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Kalyani Vallath

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

The subject has received some coverage in indepdent RS such as this one and this but still does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines. She is author of a book - Contemporary Encyclopaedia of British Literature - which is not notable (at least by WP standards). The subject fails to meet both WP:AUTHOR and basic GNG IMO. Perhaps Wikipedia:NotJustYet. Saqib (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment - So it's a self-published encyclopedia according to this source, which also has all of the hallmarks of sponsored content (what's the story here -- a person is self-publishing an encyclopedia of English literature, deferring to that person's words/descriptions for nearly all of the piece). There's also this one in addition to those linked in the nomination above. The publications themselves seem fairly legit, but I can't get past the promotional feel of some of the content to keep (nor do I have evidence of that promotional quality to justify !voting delete). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

*Comment There is no doubt that she has been in many news and has been well known among literature student in India. I've searched the sources about this figure and found that she qualifies to be in wiki. ( vote - Keep)AntiHeroAnkit (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antites.

Weak delete. The Menon Hindu piece goes a long way towards meeting WP:GNG. But all the other sources I can find are either also non-independent of the subject or the Hindu sources, only mention her briefly (as the Deccan Chronicle source in the article does), or are too promotionally written for me to consider them reliable (as the fwdlife.in source and the Aswin Hindu sources are). The pattern of promotional editing here is also unhelpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara

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

This article about a religious figure does not meet our notability or verifiability requirements. Aside from presenting religious dogma as fact, neither of this article's two sources actually mention this person. I can't find anything more substantial either. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Renato Vercelli

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

Very very very close paraphrase of [3] which is the only source extant, and is not independent or RS. I Speedy'd all three for COPYVIO, but only Gemma Vercelli was accepted as such. So putting both Giulio Romano Vercelli and Renato Vercelli up for AfD. The museum collections are unverifiable, and seem likely to be inflated, as I can't find anything legit about them online or in databases. BTW not this painter by a similar name [4] Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Kassel

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

Completely unreferenced and semi-advertorial WP:AUTOBIO (creator = User:JeffKassel) of an actor. While there are notability claims here that might qualify him for an article if they were properly referenced, the article claims nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG -- but all I can find on a Google News search is a few glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage that's substantively about him for the purposes of helping to establish his notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete the article lacks anything even close to a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 08:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete - per no WP:RS found at WP:BEFORE, should be a BIOPLOD. --Quek157 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Tamel de Pablos

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:PROF WP:NAUTHOR Dom from Paris (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete - The cited sources lack independence or are passing mentions. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, Project MUSE, ProQuest, and Questia found a smattering of citations and quotes, but neither significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor anything to pass subject-specific notability guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter Van den Bossche

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

apparent puff piece with hall mark external links to various sites with which the subject is associated. Sources largely primary or from commercial sites. Edaham (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Edaham (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment Created by a user with an apparent COI, this piece makes use of in-body external links, is sourced only from the sites with which the subject is affiliated etc. Additionally I've draftified the page World_Trade_Institute, which had been (unbelievably) passed - untagged by a NPP, despite being woefully sourced only from the WTI website and being a similarly COIed puff piece - an oversight I hope. Suggest that those involved be strongly discouraged from creating pages about or affiliated with this institution and its employees. Edaham (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete a horrifically-formatted article, with no independent references or clear claim of meeting WP:NPROF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Siegfried Lüthy

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

Unsourced. Questionable notability. Seems to appear as an incidental character in the Anneliese Michel case and not otherwise noteworthy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Romaine Waite

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of an actor "notable" primarily for supporting or bit parts rather than major roles. As always, actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- the notability clincher is not in the list of roles, but in the depth of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to get him over WP:GNG for having roles. But the sources shown here are not reliable or notability-supporting ones: right across the board, it's referenced to blogs and primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him. Every single footnote here is a complete and total non-starter in terms of establishing an actor's notability -- the ones that are about him are unreliable sources, and the ones that are reliable sources aren't about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Weak Keep kond of borderline but seems to have enough significant roles in series to warrant inclusion. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no number of roles that ever hands any actor a free exemption from having to have enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG for the having of roles. Notability for an actor is a question of counting the number of quality sources that are present to support the content, not of counting the number of roles he's had while handwaving the sourcing issues away. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Weak Delete - many of the sources are either OR, mentions, dead links or seriously non-reliable. However a couple are merely questionable sources - I don't believe they are sufficiently acceptable to be viable as suitable sources, but they aren't a million miles off. Obviously there are a lot of mentions around both in article and on a BEFORE sweep. This does give the significant possibility that there is a proper source somewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Anne Boulton

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a screenwriter, film producer and sessional university lecturer. The apparent notability claim here is that a film she wrote won an award, but the article fails to specify or reliably source what award is involved. There's only one reference here, and it's to an article in her hometown newspaper -- so that is not enough coverage in and of itself to get her over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete Writer of an "award winning" short film, that doesn't have an article of its own. Not enough to show notability. Park3r (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

John Alden Milne

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

Poorly referenced and semi-advertorialized article, started as an WP:AUTOBIO by the subject himself, about a filmmaker whose strongest claim of notability is making films that have screened at the local film festival in his own hometown with very little evidence of any wider distribution or media attention. The fact that he and his films exist is not an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass for a filmmaker, however -- he has to have enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, but apart from a few pieces of local media coverage in his own hometown, the only other references here are unreliable sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about a band he did a music video for. This is not enough coverage to get him over GNG, nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG, and even people who do have a clear pass of our notability standards still don't get to start their article themselves per our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all I am a Canadian film and indie music fan and not related to the subject. The feature film mentioned has been picked up for distribution and as such, will ultimately be reviewed and will receive additional coverage. The subject has numerous references including an article from a national magazine that has been inexplicably deleted. User:Thomsonobrien

I wasn't talking about you — you did not create this article, User:Johnaldenmilne did. And the notability criterion for films is not "will ultimately be reviewed and will receive additional coverage", either — it's that enough coverage to clear WP:GNG already exists. We don't extend notability on the basis of predictions — we determine notability on the basis of what is already reliably sourceable as already true. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep he and his partner have received substantial coverage and he's been awarded recognition at regional film festivals. I think it's enough. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Received substantial coverage where, given that a small smattering of hometown coverage alone is not enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself if he has no claim of extralocal notability at all? "Recognition at one regional film festival in the filmmaker's own hometown" is not an automatic free pass over WP:CREATIVE for a filmmaker whose films have never verifiably screened anywhere beyond that one film festival alone. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Evidence of attention by regional media is a strong indication of notability." He's had entire bylined articles about him and his work and has won regional awards for his films and muaic videos. It's not some minor locality of a few thousands but a city of more than 100,000 people. There are many countries that size. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't — notability per WP:CREATIVE requires some evidence of wider attention beyond just the confines of a creative professional's own hometown. If a bit of local coverage were all it took, we'd have to keep an article about every person who ever won a high school poetry contest but had no nationalized claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, every band that ever played their local pub but never actually passed WP:NMUSIC for anything, everybody who ever exhibited their pottery at a local artisan's fair, and on and so forth. For a filmmaker, "notable because awards" attaches to awards on the level of the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, not to every "Best Local Film" award at every second-tier film festival in every filmmaker's own hometown. And you might want to peruse Talk:Greater Sudbury, wherein I reveal something you probably didn't know about me, if you think you have any chance of ever schoolin' me anything I didn't already know about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A colleague who worked on the feature film Savage Tales, which Bearcat had deleted, just shared that the film received a distribution offer and an announcement will be made. Generally, reviews will follow. It often takes 2 years from screening (even at a "second-tier festival") to distribution. Milne is also a Toronto bred and based filmmaker and your comment is offensive comparing the work of a professional filmmaker (who brought a high level of skill to "the North" working on large format films) with high school poetry, local pub bands and potters. The need to win an Oscar or CSA in order to be a noted Canadian filmmaker is incredibly narrow and biased. The article needs to be edited yes but deletion is an extreme and premature measure. User:Thomsonobrien —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The notability test for a filmmaker is not what might happen in the future, and neither is anybody's personal opinion about the quality of his work relevant at all — the notability test is "a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage already exists, about him already having accomplished something that already passes WP:CREATIVE today". If all we had to do to keep an article was predict that somebody might pass a notability criterion in the future that they haven't already passed yet as of today, then we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all, because absolutely everybody could make that exact same claim. Wikipedia is not a free public relations database to help aspiring future notables promote themselves — notability is determined by the significance of the accomplishments, and the depth of sourceability, that are already true today, not by what a person might accomplish in the future. If and when one or more of his films actually get commercial distribution, and enough coverage of him actually materializes accordingly to get him over GNG, then an article about him can be recreated because the notability equation will have changed — but for him to have an article today, we can only evaluate the significance and sourceability of what's already true today, and nothing that's already true today gets him over CREATIVE or GNG yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Local sources only. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Tony Byrd

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

Does not satisfy biographical notability or entertainment notability. Google search turns up no relevant in-depth coverage (vanity hits and other people). Could go with BLPPROD but using AFD to bundle related pieces by same editor on his work. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Both of these films are scheduled for release in 2019, and do not satisfy film notability when nothing is said about production. In twelve to eighteen months, films sometimes are developed and sometimes go into development hell. Mention of the films at this point is purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete These articles don't meet notability standards. BOVINEBOY2008 12:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete the bio does not pass WP:GNG and its WP:TOOSOON for the films Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halfway (EastEnders). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Tony Clay

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

Fails WP:ENT. From what I can find out the actor has had a few roles in television. However, with the exception of EastEnders, all these roles only appear to be for one episode and do not appear to be notable roles. Of the two films he has appeared in, one was classed as a short film, the other he played a sale sign man, again neither would appear notable. I've also searched the stage plays he's been in and not really found anything on Google. I would assume if they were notable parts the search engine would have found something.

I suggest either deleting the article or redirecting it to Halfway (EastEnders). 5 albert square (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirect seems right here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Redirect for the same reasons as above. Soaper1234 - talk 19:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sani Aliyu

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

DG of a non-notable organisation National Agency for the Control of AIDS is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia until xe meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete The agency although glorified with the word "national": it is mere sub-agency in broader Health Ministry, there are many of such mini-mini deparments and they are all not notable So it is not surprising there are no sources for both it is leader and the organization. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert Toth

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

Apparently non-notable, does not meet WP:ARTIST. I've not been able to access the two sources in the page, but I believe that they are cartoons by the subject. I've found some promotional material for this person, but no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Note: the page appears to have been created by someone close to the subject; I've removed some unsourced personal detail per WP:BLP, and am somewhat curious to know where that came from – it's not on his website, for example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Further note: Although this has come up as "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Toth (3rd nomination)", it is the first deletion discussion for this person; the previous two nominations related to a quite different Robert Toth, a commercial artist in the United States. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment, the first two afds appear to have been for this Robert Toth, this afd is concerning a different Robert Toth. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete no WP:RS, no awards. Just some illustrations he has done. Plus WP:COI. --Theredproject (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no option for "marginal keep". But according to the consensus here, there should be. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hertford British Hospital Charity

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

Poor source. Not notable. Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 17:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. I have just moved this article to Hertford British Hospital. The basic history is - Notable British Hospital in France for 100+ years - the hospital gets absorbed into French Health System and disappears - what is left is a charity of no importance. The article is now about the hospital. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

~~*Delete~~ - Per WP:NHOSPITALS, I can only see one trivial independent source. I search the net but are just routine mentions, news neither. If there are any more sources, I will be willing to change the vote. Quek157 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Further Comment- what to do with the redirect as this page is moved during this Afd, the redirect should also be deleted if this is deleted. No one cares to give anymore sources??? --Quek157 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ Weak Keep English Millionaire of Paris - and the Hertford British Hospital sounds like it might be a decent covering source. If anyone can find access bonus points await.

Access on that might be tricky, but anyone with either direct or library access should be able to get to Lancet - HBH in Paris (1), Lancet - HBH in Paris (2) or most encouragingly Lancet Vol 1 Part 1 - with encouraging snippet view. I despise trying to make a !vote on notability when there are potential sources in the offing, so any details much desired Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've switched mine to a weak keep - however if someone could get some better access that would be greatly appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

weak KeepRemoved my delete vote upon discovery of new sources (which is what I am waiting for), but will need someone to read or access those sources, prima facie case of notablity is established, promising development --Quek157 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC) with these sources a marginal keep can be established, this is already relisted 3 times and no need a fourth --Quek157 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. leaning towards delete, but neither side is very compelling, so defaulting to no consensus after it has been relisted twice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

DAV foundation

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

This is yet another non-notable blockchain company. My searches for "DAV foundation" and "DAV network" do not turn up any coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I've just posted this on my talk page in reply to a question about the sources used in the article: "Forbes/sites are not under editorial control of Forbes and are not considered reliable. Techbullion "offers digital marketing services for Financial Technology companies" so is also not reliable. The Blockchain news source is obviously copied from a press release." SmartSE (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep - I agree about the questionable legitimacy of the Techbullion articles. However, I do think that the Forbes article, as well as the article posted in Vice about the DAV Foundation which I added as a citation are a different story. Disclaimer, I work at the DAV Foundation, and am quite familiar with the work being done there. The fact that its technology is based on blockchain shouldn't necessary lump it in the same group as the endless other "blockchain companies" out there. The Foundation does truly unique things in its role as a consortium bringing together some of the biggest companies in the world in an effort to create open standards for autonomous transportation. I agree the article itself can use some improvements to be more in line with Wikipedia's quality standards; I will be happy to help improve it. ZzzrByte —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

— ZzzrByte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Promo 'cruft. Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: Meets the requirements of WP:NCORP for having significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. This includes an independent feature in Vice, and extensive coverage and interviews about the foundation in Next: Blockchain a documentary series about the history and future effects of blockchain technology (beyond a paywall unfortunately but can see this in credits on amazon page and in the trailer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzzrByte (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

striking duplicate !vote. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Keeo: Has significant coverage in industry publications. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would re-list this to give time for an evaluation of the additional sources, but it's been re-listed thrice already, so I'm not doing that. WP:TOOSOON doesn't seem to apply to a career lasting this long. My recommendation would be to discuss the additional sources on the article's talk page and giving some time for wider community participation before bringing this to AfD again. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Walter Hus

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

Notability: insufficient references to establish notability RJFJR (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment A quick Google search turns up this very Wikipedia article followed by Vimeo, Facebook, Youtube, and IMDb. The French Wikipedia has an article but it, too, has no references, like the Russian (?) one. Found this result in Dutch which looks like it might be the right kind of coverage, though all of this makes me wonder why there is no article in the Dutch Wikipedia about him. A loose noose (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I did a quick search for "Walter Hus" in the Belgian Gopress newspaper archive, and found over 400 articles: 66 in De Morgen, 57 in De Standaard, 56 in Het Nieuwsblad, 38 in De Tijd, 37 in La libre Belgique, 32 in Le Soir, etc. The Wikipedia article as it stands has not been kept up to date, but Hus has done a number of noteworthy things in the last couple of years, amongst others a Comic Strip Opera with Chris Ware ('Opera met strips verbinden is subversief', De Morgen, 2 March 2012, http://gpr.me/tq1xy00h1s/, account needed), and lots of work with the Decap Dance organ (see a.o. 'Un violoncelle, un accordéon et un orchestre mécanique', Le Soir, 2 November 2017, http://gpr.me/ffx4zt081x/, account needed). -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I missed this before recommending "delete." If you add 2 or 3 articles of the quality that you're implying exist—as references—I'd change my vote. Tapered (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Added a couple of sources. - Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete The article's only listed ref is a mention in what appears to be a fairly exhaustive listing of contemporary composers. The only nearly significant mention from the search tools is a dedicated section of a list of composer/performers in a blog. Nowhere near the threshold for WP:NM. Delete. Tapered (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Added a number of sources, but even so, the above is incorrect. See e.g. http://muziekcentrum.kunsten.be/identity.php?ID=133974, with a list of printed references. :) - Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, two of the articles added as references require a GoPress account, whatever that is. One is from BruzzOut, which has no Wikipedia page. One is from an 11 year old film festival. Not this editor's idea of WP:RS. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Piękniewska, for the kinds of sources editor Puncinus produced to substantiate notability. Tapered (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A little bit of walkback. The self-published biography from the Arts Point contains promising looking sources. Tapered (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't get the "self-published" -- do you mean that Hus wrote this article himself? Or do you mean self-published in the sense that it has no "traditional publisher"? As to that: the Flanders Music Centre is an official publication of the Flemish government. Bruzz has a Wikipedia page at https://www.wikiwand.com/nl/BRUZZ_(krant) which I'm sure you can run through Google translate - tl;dr: it's sort of Brussels' BBC. And GoPress is the online database of just about all Belgian media. Hey, you know what? It has no Wikipedia page, but there's an About page you could also quickly run through Google translate here: https://www.gopress.be/info/nl/about. This is all very disheartening, and not a great way to make people feel welcome. I sort of remember from a long time ago there used to be something like WP:AGF, so when I said I "found over 400 articles" (by which I meant *print* articles, in Belgium's leading newspapers and magazine ("66 in De Morgen, 57 in De Standaard, 56 in Het Nieuwsblad, 38 in De Tijd, 37 in La libre Belgique, 32 in Le Soir, etc") I didn't expect to be half-treated like a liar. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO & generally WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As a musician, both solo and as a member of Maximalist!, at the very least (1) is covered -- see this article, as well as (10) (amongst others Rosas danst Rosas). As a composer, at the very least (1) (see previous) and (2) are covered (amongst others an opera with Chris Ware), as well as (3) "appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music": Delaere & Compeers, Contemporary Music in Flanders I, Flemish String Quartets since 1950, Muziekcentrum Vlaanderen / MATRIX, Brussels, 2004, ISBN 90-77717-013 (downloadable from here). In general, Hus is "cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre", for his work with the Dance organ. As for the WP:TOOSOON, I don't see how that applies someone who's been in reliable independent sources for his music since at least the late 1980s. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The article now contains the following sources:
- For Hus in general: 'Walter Hus over het hoe en waarom van componeren', De Morgen, 17 January 2005, http://gpr.me/vgsnk4kzw9/. The intro of that article (in one of Belgium's leading daily newspapers): 'Het komt niet vaak voor dat de naam van een hedendaagse componist door redelijk wat mensen wordt herkend. Bij ons is Walter Hus misschien een uitzondering. De afgelopen jaren oogstte hij ook bij theaterliefhebbers succes met zijn vier opera's op tekst van Jan Decorte: diens ver- en hertalingen van stukken van Shakespeare.' (translation)
- For film music in general: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0403818/
- For work with Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker: 'Het stuk dat maar niet verouderd raakt', De Morgen, 16 May 2015, http://gpr.me/hy3kgsd5c0/
- For work with Needcompany: 'Met de deurklink in de hand', De Tijd, 23 April 2003, http://gpr.me/kbex1g4anj/
- For work with Wim Vandekeybus: 'Met geluid wil ik de stille film eren', Gazet van Antwerpen, 14 January 1999, http://gpr.me/kphv2cqs1a/
- For his string quartets: Delaere & Compeers, Contemporary Music in Flanders I, Flemish String Quartets since 1950, Muziekcentrum Vlaanderen / MATRIX, Brussels, 2004, ISBN 90-77717-013, http://muziekcentrum.kunsten.be/document.php?ID=1769
- For his opera Orfeo: Stalpaert, C. and Roy, F.L. and Bousset, S., No Beauty for Me There where Human Life is Rare: On Jan Lauwers' Theatre with Needcompany, Studies in performing arts and film, ISBN 9789038210575, Academia Press and International Theatre and Film Books, 2007
- For his opera "Meneer, de zot & tkint": 'Kernachtig collectief muziekdrama van Walter Hus', De Standaard, 25 September 2000, http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dst25092000_037
- For his opera "Bloetwollefduivel": 'Driemaal Shakespeares "Macbeth" in Brussel en Rotterdam', De Standaard, 11 April 2001, http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dst11042001_065
- For his opera "Titus Andonderonikustmijnklote": 'Doe-het-zelfopera van Walter Hus', 13 September 2002, http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dst13092002_056
- For these last three operas in general: 'Not so damned human(istic): Muziektheater volgens vier heren van het gewezen Maximalist!', ETCETERA. Tijdschrift voor podiumkunsten, December 2004, http://theater.uantwerpen.be/etc_pdf/2004-12_jg22_nr94_24-29.pdf
- For his cooperation with Chris Ware: 'Opera met strips verbinden is subversief', De Morgen, 2 March 2012, http://gpr.me/tq1xy00h1s/
- For his innovative use of the Decap organ: 'Un violoncelle, un accordéon et un orchestre mécanique', Le Soir, 2 November 2017, http://gpr.me/ffx4zt081x/ and 'Belem & the Mekanics bring alive the sound of Decap', Bruzz, 14 November 2017, https://www.bruzz.be/node/106287 and 'Walter Hus pour le projet Belem & The Mekanics', RTBF interview, https://www.rtbf.be/auvio/detail_walter-hus-pour-le-projet-belem-the-mekanics?id=2280981
- For his winning an award for a recent soundtrack: '“Waste Land” en “N – The Madness of Reason” grote winnaars van de Ensors', https://www.filmfestivaloostende.be/geen-categorie/waste-land-en-n-the-madness-of-reason-grote-winnaars-van-de-ensors/

I'm not sure how much more I need to do to persuade you to keep this article. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brown University. In theory a perfectly reasonable content fork (it's been pointed out that a wholesale merge of this would be vastly too large for the parent article) consensus here appears to be that there is insufficient independent, reliable-source coverage to warrant most of the content here. There is no consensus to particularly delete this content in its entirety - the likely way forward is to incorporate the few reliably sourced parts of this into the parent article. For these purposes, the history of the article has been left intact for merging purposes. ~ mazca ^talk 17:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Brown University traditions

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

Nothing on this list of traditions gives any sense of notability to the topic as a stand-alone article, and it is all extremely poorly referenced as almost all references given are primary. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Weak keep as child of Brown University parent article. In that sense, it's like a WP:CSC, which has grown too large for the parent, and where the according to the examples given, the specific set being listed does not appear to require notability "for the set". At least two of these appear to have mention in independent sources. Some of the entries I can see being scrapped as unencyclopediac/transient local interest/in-joke things. Note that Category:Traditions by university or college in the United States has about 25 "[School name] traditions" style articles, which (by spot-check) do not have stated or cited notability for the specific subtopic of "traditions of the school". I'll ping WP:COLLEGE as it's of general relevance. DMacks (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment from nom: From what I see, only one third party source is present in the article, regarding their naked parties. All the other topics on the page are either unsourced or only primary sources can be found. While the set may not need to be notable as a whole, I would expect, for this type of article, that there would be available third party sources for at least a few more of the individual topics showing notability (or that they even exist at all) to give justification for there to be an entire stand-alone article on their traditions. Regarding the category, for other universities that also have traditions pages with little encyclopedic content, they should also be considered for merge or deletion. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 00:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge to Brown University - probably better off as a section instead of an independent article. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Merge with Brown University - agree with User: Kirbanzo. Vorbee (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment/Query - I don't think a merge is wise, since it either is too big and disruptive violating WP:UNDUE or has to lose content. However, if you guys can help me out - is Brown University 2012 They were once a publisher, specifically for print guides on colleges, but I've no idea if there was any quality congtrol. If it is reliable, then it would back up some traditions. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Nosebagbear regarding merging.. there's a lot in this article if it were all to be merged. The reason I nominated it for deletion instead is because, when looking to see what material there is that could be merged, I really can't find anything that has reliable sources with it to back up the statements. If there was material in the article that had reliable sources then that material could be merged, and if the article had so much that keeping all of it upon merging would violate WP:UNDUE then the article should be kept and I would not have nominated it. Regarding the source provided, looking at it and comparing it to WP:SOURCE, books should be published by "respected publishing houses". I'm admittedly not an expert in publishing houses, but normally College Prowler doesn't seem like it'd be on the top of my list for fact checking and evidence. Curious as to what other wikipedians think... - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 05:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanstrat: - I had a look at the reliable sources noticeboard archives - one appreciable comment in favour, others merely using, so I've dropped it as a specific request for a few more opinions on College Prowler/Niche to see if we can get a rough and ready consensus on the source.Nosebagbear (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Taking a look at the source, even if it's deemed reliable at WP:RSN... I don't think there's enough available sourced content on the subject matter to warrant this separate page. The contents of the College Prowler source combined with the content from the one other reliable source present can be easily summarized on the main Brown University page without violating WP:UNDUE. For example, the Van Wickle Gates already have an entire article of their own, and there's already a Student life section on the page containing a Spring weekend subsection. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Brown University, unless anyone can identify any independently-sourced encyclopaedic content at all in the page (I can't), in which case some of that could be merged with due regard for WP:WEIGHT. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Martynas Linkevičius

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBASKETBALL (the Lithuanian leagues aren't listed) or WP:GNG. Simply being a teammate of LiAngelo Ball doesn't grant notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep Has enough sources to pass GNG, as a quick Google News search demonstrates. I added two myself. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 10:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 14:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Super-Max|Super-Max]]||{{Time ago|20180327113327}}||1||1935||0||'''3240.58'''
+|[[#Super-Max|Super-Max]]||{{Time ago|20180327113327}}||1||1935||0||'''3254.05'''
 |-
-|[[#The Pritzker Estate|The Pritzker Estate]]||{{Time ago|20180404202154}}||3||3278||0||'''2473.16'''
+|[[#The Pritzker Estate|The Pritzker Estate]]||{{Time ago|20180404202154}}||3||3278||0||'''2486.64'''
 |-
-|[[#Craig Handley|Craig Handley]]||{{Time ago|20180405233115}}||3||3383||0||'''2391.48'''
+|[[#Craig Handley|Craig Handley]]||{{Time ago|20180405233115}}||3||3383||0||'''2404.97'''
 |-
-|[[#Skittish / Rockity Roll|Skittish / Rockity Roll]]||{{Time ago|20180501184628}}||2||4349||0||'''583.91'''
+|[[#Skittish / Rockity Roll|Skittish / Rockity Roll]]||{{Time ago|20180501184628}}||2||4349||0||'''597.39'''
 |-
-|[[#Upsilon Xi|Upsilon Xi]]||{{Time ago|20180505062947}}||0||1526||0||'''497.79'''
+|[[#Billy Greenwood|Billy Greenwood]]||{{Time ago|20180503191218}}||2||3993||0||'''451.89'''
 |-
-|[[#Santiago Stieben|Santiago Stieben]]||{{Time ago|20180505080600}}||0||2468||1||'''492.92'''
+|[[#St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)|St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)]]||{{Time ago|20180506064800}}||0||2867||1||'''438.31'''
 |-
-|[[#Dana Converse Backus|Dana Converse Backus]]||{{Time ago|20180505110509}}||0||1932||0||'''483.78'''
+|[[#Kalyani Vallath|Kalyani Vallath]]||{{Time ago|20180506065100}}||0||4212||1||'''438.06'''
 |-
-|[[#Mikkhail Vaswani|Mikkhail Vaswani]]||{{Time ago|20180505064716}}||0||2616||0||'''481.8'''
+|[[#Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara|Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara]]||{{Time ago|20180506081231}}||0||2162||0||'''419.08'''
 |-
-|[[#Tomsrtbt|Tomsrtbt]]||{{Time ago|20180504174157}}||1||3090||0||'''471.17'''
+|[[#Renato Vercelli|Renato Vercelli]]||{{Time ago|20180506154149}}||0||1965||0||'''411.59'''
 |-
-|[[#Nanda Devi Institute of Adventure Sports and Outdoor Education|Nanda Devi Institute of Adventure Sports and Outdoor Education]]||{{Time ago|20180505113333}}||0||2146||0||'''467.5'''
+|[[#Jeff Kassel|Jeff Kassel]]||{{Time ago|20180506160417}}||0||1944||0||'''410.38'''
 |-
-|[[#Ice Creme|Ice Creme]]||{{Time ago|20180505163211}}||0||1304||0||'''467.49'''
+|[[#Tamel de Pablos|Tamel de Pablos]]||{{Time ago|20180506171821}}||0||1257||0||'''406.81'''
 |-
-|[[#CoCo and the Butterfields|CoCo and the Butterfields]]||{{Time ago|20180505192044}}||0||1373||0||'''459'''
+|[[#Peter Van den Bossche|Peter Van den Bossche]]||{{Time ago|20180506064900}}||1||4697||2||'''403.23'''
 |-
-|[[#Pallavi Patil|Pallavi Patil]]||{{Time ago|20180505142736}}||0||2087||0||'''458.81'''
+|[[#Siegfried Lüthy|Siegfried Lüthy]]||{{Time ago|20180506191159}}||0||1711||0||'''401.11'''
 |-
-|[[#Studio Arcade|Studio Arcade]]||{{Time ago|20180505051148}}||1||1708||0||'''451.65'''
+|[[#Romaine Waite|Romaine Waite]]||{{Time ago|20180506161916}}||0||2278||0||'''394.73'''
 |-
-|[[#Games for the Many|Games for the Many]]||{{Time ago|20180505211500}}||0||7001||2||'''448.32'''
+|[[#Anne Boulton|Anne Boulton]]||{{Time ago|20180506171142}}||0||2177||0||'''391.9'''
 |-
-|[[#Morayo Awosola|Morayo Awosola]]||{{Time ago|20180505184805}}||0||2139||0||'''445.77'''
+|[[#John Alden Milne|John Alden Milne]]||{{Time ago|20180506172134}}||0||3386||0||'''391.52'''
 |-
-|[[#Billy Greenwood|Billy Greenwood]]||{{Time ago|20180503191218}}||2||3993||0||'''438.4'''
+|[[#Tony Byrd|Tony Byrd]]||{{Time ago|20180506064300}}||1||3038||1||'''388.59'''
 |-
-|[[#DayStar Technologies|DayStar Technologies]]||{{Time ago|20180505063324}}||1||2045||0||'''432.38'''
+|[[#Tony Clay|Tony Clay]]||{{Time ago|20180506065100}}||1||3021||1||'''388.19'''
 |-
-|[[#Tony Byrd|Tony Byrd]]||{{Time ago|20180506064300}}||0||2871||1||'''425.12'''
+|[[#Sani Aliyu|Sani Aliyu]]||{{Time ago|20180506065200}}||1||2513||1||'''388.1'''
 |-
-|[[#St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)|St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)]]||{{Time ago|20180506064800}}||0||2867||1||'''424.84'''
+|[[#Robert Toth |Robert Toth (3rd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20180506065200}}||1||3877||1||'''388.09'''
 |-
-|[[#Kalyani Vallath|Kalyani Vallath]]||{{Time ago|20180506065100}}||0||4212||1||'''424.57'''
+|[[#Hertford British Hospital Charity|Hertford British Hospital Charity]]||{{Time ago|20180506065000}}||1||3212||1||'''388.08'''
 |-
-|[[#2A Magazine|2A Magazine]]||{{Time ago|20180505142242}}||1||1679||0||'''423.83'''
+|[[#DAV foundation|DAV foundation]]||{{Time ago|20180506065100}}||1||4918||1||'''387.99'''
 |-
-|[[#Mumble-Jumble|Mumble-Jumble]]||{{Time ago|20180506132900}}||0||1866||1||'''419.73'''
+|[[#Walter Hus|Walter Hus]]||{{Time ago|20180506065600}}||1||6280||2||'''382.95'''
 |-
-|[[#Andrei Martinez Agras|Andrei Martinez Agras]]||{{Time ago|20180505162129}}||1||1734||0||'''417.92'''
+|[[#Brown University traditions|Brown University traditions]]||{{Time ago|20180506064334}}||1||3217||0||'''373.34'''
 |-
-|[[#Elizabeth Alderfer|Elizabeth Alderfer]]||{{Time ago|20180505175347}}||1||1796||0||'''413.37'''
+|[[#Martynas Linkevičius|Martynas Linkevičius]]||{{Time ago|20180506115200}}||1||2912||1||'''373.04'''
 |}
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Handley}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skittish / Rockity Roll}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upsilon Xi}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santiago Stieben}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Converse Backus}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikkhail Vaswani}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomsrtbt}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanda Devi Institute of Adventure Sports and Outdoor Education}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Creme}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoCo and the Butterfields}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallavi Patil}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studio Arcade}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games for the Many}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morayo Awosola}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Greenwood}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DayStar Technologies}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Byrd}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyani Vallath}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2A Magazine}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumble-Jumble}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato Vercelli}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Martinez Agras}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Kassel}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Alderfer}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamel de Pablos}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Van den Bossche}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siegfried Lüthy}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romaine Waite}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Boulton}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Alden Milne}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Byrd}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Clay}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sani Aliyu}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Toth (3rd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hertford British Hospital Charity}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DAV foundation}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Hus}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown University traditions}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martynas Linkevičius}}