Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 April	6 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 redirect to Family Guy (season 15). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Family Guy

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The one source that is cited contains a brief overview of the season rather than providing coverage of the episode about which the article is written. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are articles for almost all Family Guy episodes, but if there's not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, just redirect. There is no reason to delete a page that is a possible search term. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked about my response on my talk page, so I'd like to rephrase. What I mean to say is that this redirect serves a purpose by directing readers to Family Guy (season 15). We shouldn't delete this page, which is helpful to the encyclopedia, but just redirect and avoid wasting editors' time by extending this discussion for too long. I hope this clarifies my thoughts a bit, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). I had already done this per WP:BOLD and a similar discussion, but it was reverted.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 13:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). Much like in the other recent discussion that Molandfreak brought up above, there is nothing to indicate that this specific episode has any independent notability. The article is nothing but plot, and the only sources available are nothing but previews or plot summaries of the episode. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). As others have noted, this lacks any hint of independent notability and the sourcing is terrible.--NukeofEarl (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable however readers may search for the term. MartinJones (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (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 Family Guy (season 15). Kurykh (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Has Got a Date, Date, Date, Date, Date

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The one source that is cited contains a brief overview of the season rather than providing coverage of the episode about which the article is written. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are articles for almost all Family Guy episodes, but if there's not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, just redirect. There is no reason to delete a page that is a possible search term. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked about my response on my talk page, so I'd like to rephrase. What I mean to say is that this redirect serves a purpose by directing readers to Family Guy (season 15). We shouldn't delete this page, which is helpful to the encyclopedia, but just redirect and avoid wasting editors' time by extending this discussion for too long. I hope this clarifies my thoughts a bit, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). I had already done this per WP:BOLD and a similar discussion, but it was reverted.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). Just like the other FG episode articles that have come up on AFD recently, this article has no sources that indicate that it has independent notability. It is nothing but a plot summary, and the only sources available are similarly nothing but plot summaries. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm in agreement with the sensible comments above. I can see no benefit to full deletion over a redirect but this is not a notable topic. MartinJones (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2017 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

宗 also known as .

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

Fails WP:GNG, AFAICT. Searching the nom de plume proves difficult, since the character and '.' occur frequently in unrelated articles. No real name given. The article's tone is promotional, but not "unambiguous advertising" and a somewhat credible claim of relevance is made. Hence AfD. Kleuske (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything on google other than the artist's facebook and twitter page. Fails GNG. Bennv3771 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced BLP. Cabayi (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The author is a newcomer - I have added a welcome and ProdwarningBLP to their talk page - will see if they can add any references that infer notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:TNT, also known as enough said. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not something which should be included. MartinJones (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Rice

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

The General Notability Guideline has not been met. The coverage I was able to find is split between two categories: coverage related to her death, and coverage related to her daughter. I would propose merging to the article about her daughter Susan Rice but she's not even mentioned in it. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge: Her supposed involvement with Pell Grant seems to indicate notability, to an extent at least. In addition to this, she is the spouse of a notable person. RoCo^(talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being the spouse (or mother) of a notable person isn't a reason to keep an article. Notability is never inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, which is why I ended the claim of notability before that sentence. Pell Grant involvement, however, seems to suggest something. RoCo^(talk) 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG is met spectacularly well with sources found in just the shortest of google searches [1] [2] [3] [4]. If obituaries aren't pay-for content but are independently composed features, they count as reliable and significant. Yvarta (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I said in the nomination, the coverage is all about her death, with passing mentions about her being Susan Rice's mother. There's nothing else. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused Exemplo347 - beyond being obituaries, how are they about her death? If you read the articles, her death is mentioned only in one or two sentences, and the rest is about her life and accomplishments. If she was murdered horribly or died in an unusual way and the articles reflected that, then I might agree with you. Yvarta (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"How are obituaries about her death?" Exemplo347 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point, Exemplo347. They address her death, yes, but that is not their only topic - these are not paid obituaries placed as advertisements for a funeral: they came out after her death because her death spurred the new attention. If they had been spurred by a firing from a major company, but still focused on her and not the firing in great detail, then they would be about her, not the central event that led to the media coverage. Yvarta (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, due to Pell Grant connection.Un school 03:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant obituaries in multiple national newspapers seems to meet basic criteria for notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a long in-depth piece run on your death in WSJ and NYT (and several other places) is a clear sign of your significance. Besides that, a BEFORE here should be done. For instance I found the following two pieces from 70s in NYT - [5] (on her marriage (which was covered since both parties were significant) - added to article) and [6] (didn't add - long opinion piece by her). There's probably plenty more in print archives - just need to look under the right names.Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WSJ and NYT editorial obits clearly show notability.--Jahaza (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government efficiency

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

In the article's current state, it probably needs some WP:TNT. This list has apparently only had one entry since at least 2011, and the title of the article doesn't match the current content of the article: A sole, statistical entry for the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Government waste as a reasonable target, but that article probably could use some WP:TNT too... – Train2104 (t • c) 00:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An article could certainly be created,[7][8][9][10] but this sorry stub isn't it. Also, no such animal has ever been observed in the wild. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While an article could, in theory, be created, this isn't it. Right now, it's a tiny stub of a fork of Government waste, to which it could be redirected in the good judgment of the closing sysop. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cline (Recording Engineer)

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

No evidence of notability as an academic or a recording engineer. One source, published by his employer. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as an A7 There is no indication of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not speedy) - I found the UTSA source, but that's about the extent of it. I wouldn't even redirect, given the disambiguation term in the title. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (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. Issues with the page can be discussed at the article talk page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rebel (singer)

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

Reason Seamus45 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why this page celebrating an otherwise unknown racist bigot is even in Wikipedia. I was under the impression that to qualify for an entry, the subject must be a person of some distinction or renown. Before I came across this entry, I had never heard of this individual before, and I doubt if anyone else (outside of perhaps members of a white power movement) has heard of him either.

This piece seems like an encomium to this person, or at the least a normalization of his “philosophy” - if that word can be used in conjunction with whatever passes for thought processes in such people.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale has been provided. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Having a Wikipedia article is not a question of whether we approve of what the person is notable for or not — racists and bigots do get into Wikipedia if they were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. The fact that Wikipedia has an article on somebody does not mean that we endorse them; it just means people might be looking for the information. If you have concerns with the article's tone, flag it for WP:NPOV, and no prejudice against renomination in the future if somebody can provide more compelling evidence that it's not suitable for some reason (e.g. he's just namechecked within the cited sources rather than being their subject) — but we don't delete articles just because some or most editors don't like the person. We don't have to like the reasons why someone is notable — but we do have to accept that some people are notable for bad reasons. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lariss

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

No real indication of notability, as defined by WP:MUSICBIO. Two of the sources are tabloid trash – one a not very quotable interview, the other a promotion for her video. This is a PR-type thing, and in any case is about the G Girls. This tells us she won some prize at the Media Music Awards (note the red link) – the trouble is, there's no hint that that might be a "major music award", as contemplated by point 8 of the guideline. Rounding out the "sources" is this pure puffery from a radio station. A flavor: "like any artist with potential, Lariss started singing at age seven; there followed a long series of participations in olympiads and competitions, ending with diplomas and trophies".

One final point: the lead alleges that her main song was charted in all sorts of places. The source, such as it is, simply doesn't attest that. It says merely that she "is successful" in several countries, which could mean anything. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Seems WP:TOOSOON. No significant coverage, just bits here and there which is common with early development. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if it fails WP:MUSICBIO. Media Music Awards is an important music award in Romania. Also Lariss has been placed in rotation nationally by multiple major radios and music TV channels; + her song "Dale Papi" is in top 10 Romania's 2015 end-year chart[11]. Some 3-5 MUSICBIO criterias are meet. XXN, 09:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't actually know that Media Music Awards (again, note the red link) is important. Neither do we know about the national rotation. As for the chart claim, the fact is that Romanian Top 100, which closed in 2012, was the last official Romanian chart. While Media Forest does have a chart, it has no recognized standing outside itself. So I remain of the opinion that the claim to notability is rather thin. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, a red link on Wikipedia means nothing [for us]; Wikipedia it's not a reliable source for itself. About the importance of Media Music Awards you can read here or here, or their self-presentation: [12][13]. Other top medias also wrote about Media Music Awards, and the top artists and bands didn't ignored these awards - one more indication on award's reliability. Perhaps, Media Music Awards is even above the Romanian Music Awards (RMA is organized by an single music TV channel; MMA analyzes the rotations on multiple radio stations, including Kiss FM, Europa FM, Magic FM, Pro FM, Radio 21, Radio Zu, National FM, and Radio Romania Actualitati, +TV stations 1 Music Channel, Kiss TV, MTV Romania, and UTV). About MediaForest as an official country chart we can't say certainly that it's unrecognized; probably nobody yet searched about this. XXN, 17:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course we don't have articles on every notable topic, but the fact that sixteen years into our existence, and with articles on dozens and dozens of music awards, this one is missing, is at least of passing interest. However, even if we tentatively accept that the ceremony is significant, I still wonder whether "best new artist" (as opposed to best female/best male) really counts as a "major music award" (point 7), especially when no independent media reported on this in any kind of depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agnivesh Jyotiraditya

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:AUTHOR, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*ARTICLE TO BE KEPT Very appropriate article about a unique achiever which undoubtedly needs to be kept .

1. Notability - in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines several significant secondary references are given which are independently verifiable and cannot be ignored. The newspapers and media cited in the article are prominent leading newspapers in the country with millions of readers. ( kindly note that Wikipedia has retained many pages with trivial references with titles Revathi Thirunal Balagopal Varma, Vidhubala, Science Olympiad Foundation, Kumar Padmanabh Singh etc where no one has nominated those for deletion and here this article about a young achiever itself is unique and motivational)

2 notability - guidelines state a person winning multiple awards for his works is notable and this article satisfies that clause also (along with other guidelines) with the list of awards and works given.

3. Author- the guideline for category author is adhered to successfully as the person's works are a part of the Don Bosco Museum and Cebtre of indegenous cultures which is a prominent museum in India and is displayed there and has been cited in leading newspapers .

~~4. The topic is well notable and attracts wide attention and a Google search on the topic itself produces numerous links and news that shows the significance and notability of the same.~~

~~5. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia for common man to easily search for topics that he needs and such a highly searched topic is very much relevant here .~~

6. The topic itself inspires many like me due to the various fields of work undertaken by a youngster and the article ould be also considered as a special case for notability and relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Faith (talk • contribs) 09:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Noble Faith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The "reliable sources" are local special interest coverage that do not show the type of coverage we expect from actual reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strongly recommend to keep the article

The resources cited are not local but prominent newspapers which have wide circulation in different parts of India and not confined to a region alone. It's wrong to say with special interest when coverage comes in media from different parts of the country. No national museum will display works that is not competent enough. It is a very much relevant and significant article that deserves to be kept with more than 15 resources that are prominent newspapers of the country and not to be accused of special interest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan in Awe (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entry about the young achiever is inspirational and authentic. Many well known references.It is worth being kept in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:630A:F35E:2C11:36F6:972C:346E (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Authentic article quoting reliable resources. Strongly recommended to keep. Great achievements for a young kid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.254.67 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. The article itself is a breathless collection of non-verifiable or barely verifiable facts. Youngest black belt in the world indeed.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but open to being swayed if there's proof of award significance, bestseller, other key evidence of notability) - There are a few sources, but not enough to be considered "significant" and a news show that back up the points in the article, but the "best selling" part is hard to substantiate. I'm not finding what organization may have considered him a best-seller - and I cannot find an authority/identity record for him, except perhaps this "sparse" VIAF record under Monu. I don't find an authority/identity under his birth name. I am not finding information that the awards are particularly notable, except perhaps "Kamala Surayya Award" which is listed as an award under List of Malayalam literary awards, but I cannot find an independent source saying he won that award. Although he sounds to be quite a talented boy, I am not finding enough to establish notability at this time. This is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamot

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Modern sources exist, but they don't seem to say anything but that this tribe is one of a list of tribes and that the Kalhora tribe may related. Not enough for a NOR, NPOV article, I think. Nor is there a clear destination for a redirect (Sindhis and Baloch people are two options, though). Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG; not opposed to a redirect if appropriate Spiderone 09:17, 7 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Jain

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

Appears to be a WP:1EVENT candidate. It looks as if the article was created by the article's subject. The event is a Twitter retweet by the Prime Minister. reddogsix (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment - This article is about a Social media entrepreneur who is not just limited to a single event but multiple events.

The Indian Prime Minister retweeted and followed back the person which has happened for the first time in Indian history when PM followed back a common man. This was due to the initiative taken by his family of promoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Swachh Bharat (Clean India) initiative by using the logo on wedding invitation. It has instantly made the person highly popular over social media, print media and electronic media. There are over 300+ strong and high quality evidences which can be found here : https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=M1blWPSIJ_Lx8AePxKT4Bg&gws_rd=ssl#q=akash+jain+Modi&start=0&*

The biggest news sites starting from Times of India, Yahoo, Indian express, Aajtak, India TV, Dainik Bhaskar, NDTV, ANI and many more, everyone have reported the whole story of a common man becoming the internet sensation. Even the google news has been picking up the entire story : https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&ned=en_pk&ncl=dWaeHvOraNo8CzMn2CGeSGYxKD8oM&lr=en&rfilter=0&q=akash+jain&btnC=Go

Akash Jain has also been into social media activities with previous Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Indian bollywood actor Aamir Khan. He has been associated with branding for Ford Cars as well. This article is not just limited to single event. It talks about the whole activity of the person in the domain of social media.

This category already lists the Indian Internet celebrities who emerged strongly from Social media : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Internet_celebrities

The page should remain active as it showcases a 'internet celebrity and social media entrepreneur' and it should not be deleted.' Akash207 (talk)

Few more references :

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-meet-this-bengaluru-man-who-is-followed-by-pm-modi-on-twitter-2381610 http://www.inkhabar.com/national/38925-pm-modi-followed-akash-jain-after-seeing-special-wedding-card ::::v http://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-in-india/narendra-modi-followed-this-man-on-twitter-after-he-posted-a-swachh-bharat-wedding-card-4598975/ http://telugudaily.net/news/prime-minister-narendra-modi-follows-unknown-bengaluru-entrepreneur-twitter/ ::::v http://www.abplive.in/india-news/nothing-can-be-bigger-than-this-know-why-pm-narendra-modi-is-following-this-man-on-twitter-513291 ::::v https://www.kolkata24x7.com/akash-jain-is-followed-by-modi-in-tweeter.html http://www.ibtimes.co.in/modi-follows-back-bengaluru-man-twitter-do-you-know-why-722011 http://www.news18.com/news/india/man-borrows-swachh-bharat-logo-for-sisters-wedding-pm-modi-follows-him-on-twitter-1368584.html http://www.livehindustan.com/news/national/article1-prime-minister-narendra-modi-follows-akash-jain-know-why-769710.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash207 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Again, he is known for a single event. Being a "Social media entrepreneur," in itself, does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article, nor does being retweeted. Being associated with Indian cricket does not make one notable , notability is not inherited. Nor does branding just about any product, this is WP:ROUTINE. There are far from "300+ Google hits. A Google search of "akash jain" Modi tweet" shows only 73 - far less than the "300+" you propose - this number also includes many hits unrelated to the event. reddogsix (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This violates not news. People do not become notable just because one tweet by them gets retweeted by someone notable. We need more sustained coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear reddogsix & johnpacklambert,

This article is about the subject becoming an indian internet celebrity WP category - Indian Internet Celebrities) after his content went viral on social media which was not only picked up by Indian Prime minister but the whole of online media, print media, TV Media and social media. The viral content has got over 9K favourites, 3K retweets. It has become for the first time in India that a common man has been followed back by the prime minister on Social Media.

The wiki definition of Internet celebrity on wiki says someone who has become famous by means of the Internet. The wiki category Indian Internet celebrities features people who became overnight sensations after a single event. There are already many subject articles around such topic. If the event was unsustainable or small, not every media would have picked up the story. The WP:OneEvent also says that "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."

reddogsix : Below is the list of initial set of about 70-80 references of the same story with single keyword searched on google. If you search with different keywords in different languages on all platforms, you can find all 300+ stories.

Listed Links

Some of the video stories :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3UdHKTrrEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7FD2taeoDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0XQhN_Co5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZxaJcktbBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BB9sM_gqM&t=8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxOUf_oDgk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxe-C6Y4S6s

Some of the online stories :

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pm-modi-twitter-akash-jain-bengaluru/1/921284.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/meet-this-bengaluru-man-who-is-followed-by-pm-modi-on-twitter/articleshow/58020830.cms http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/pm-narendra-modi-just-started-following-this-young-boy-on-twitter-reason-will-surprise-you/614372/ http://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-in-india/narendra-modi-followed-this-man-on-twitter-after-he-posted-a-swachh-bharat-wedding-card-4598975/ http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-meet-this-bengaluru-man-who-is-followed-by-pm-modi-on-twitter-2381610 http://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/tweets-do-come-true-why-pm-modi-is-following-this-man-on-twitter-1676997 http://www.inkhabar.com/national/38925-pm-modi-followed-akash-jain-after-seeing-special-wedding-card http://performindia.com/pm-retweet-made-akaash-a-celebrity/ http://www.livehindustan.com/news/national/article1-prime-minister-narendra-modi-follows-akash-jain-know-why-769710.html?c=home-flicker http://www.news18.com/news/india/man-borrows-swachh-bharat-logo-for-sisters-wedding-pm-modi-follows-him-on-twitter-1368584.html https://www.bharatkhabar.com/so-thats-why-pm-modi-is-following-akash-jain-on-twitter/ http://www.gallinews.com/News_details/details/EBCBA/PM-Modi-Akash-Jain-Ko-Kar-Rahe-Hai-Twitter-Par-Follow-Kaun-Hai-Ye-Akash-Jain https://www.mirchi9.com/politics/narendra-modi-follows-this-young-man-akash-jain-check-why/ http://zeenews.india.com/india/boy-tweets-sisters-marriage-card-with-swachh-bharat-logo-to-narendra-modi-heres-what-pm-did-1992451.html

https://newstodayreport.com/pm-narendra-modi-follow-the-normal-person-of-banglore-named-akash-jain-on-twitter/

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/modi-follows-back-bengaluru-man-twitter-do-you-know-why-722011

http://www.hindikhabar.com/news/Modi-Follows-Akash-Jain-On-Twitter-13925-24

http://www.oneindia.com/india/modi-follows-this-bengaluru-man-after-he-puts-swachh-bharat-logo-on-wedding-card-2394630.html

http://rightactions.in/2017/04/04/a-retweet-as-appreciation-from-pm-modi-makes-him-a-star-campaigner-to-set-an-example/

http://www.newsx.com/offbeat/60364-when-pm-modi-retweeted-a-wedding-invite

http://laughingcolours.com/pm-modi-ji-re-tweets-a-common-mans-tweet-heres-the-reason-27851/

http://hindi.firstpost.com/india/pm-narendra-modi-started-following-bengaluru-based-entrepreneur-akash-jain-on-twitter-for-spread-awareness-on-swachh-bharat-abhiyan-ss-22096.html

http://news.raftaar.in/clean-india-campaign-akash-jain-prime-minister-modi-%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4-%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A1/detail/a1b3a182dac7d04947dbee382432e5b4

http://www.firkee.in/fun/why-pm-narendra-modi-is-following-this-boy-on-twitter

http://newscorral.in/article/general/pm-modi-followed-bengaluru-man-twitter-posted-swachh-bharat-wedding-card/

http://www.jansatta.com/trending-news/pm-narendra-modi-is-following-this-man-on-twitter-for-swachh-bharat-logo/291339/

http://www.thepoliticalindia.com/bengaluru-man-followed-pm-modi-twitter/

http://internethindu.in/boy-tweets-sisters-marriage-card-with-swachh-bharat-logo-this-is-what-pm-modi-did/

http://www.abplive.in/india-news/nothing-can-be-bigger-than-this-know-why-pm-narendra-modi-is-following-this-man-on-twitter-513291

http://www.uttarpradesh.org/india/pm-modi-follow-akash-jain-on-twitter-due-to-swacch-bharat-abhiyan-logo-on-wedding-card-20198/

http://tajakhabrein.com/tag/akash-jain/

http://www.thelotpot.com/wow-boy-tweeted-sisters-marriage-card-carrying-swachh-bharat-logo-check-what-modi-did-after-that/

http://www.ap7am.com/lv-251665-modi-is-fan-to-bengaluru-youth.html

http://www.indiatvnews.com/lifestyle/news-pm-modi-retweeted-this-bengaluru-man-s-wedding-card-tweet-here-s-why-375390

http://www.indiasamvad.co.in/special-stories/bengaluru-boy-adds-swachh-bharat-logo-to-the-card-pm-reacted-21011

http://janman.tv/how-to-make-pm-modi-your-follower-on-twitter/

https://www.magzter.com/news/654/1984/042017/5u2al

https://newsworldindia.in/viral/want-pm-modi-to-retweet-your-wedding-card-add-swachh-bharat-logo-bengaluru-guy-just-did-it/253583/

http://www.entertales.com/swachh-bharat-logo/

http://totalnewsexpress.in/hindi/news/national/story/pm-modi-follows-comman-man-akash-using-swach-bharat-logo-marriage-card-1-921589

http://www.mixturetv.com/narendra-modi-follows-akash-jain-from-karnataka-details/

https://www.gazabpost.com/tweets-do-come-true-why-pm-modi-is-following-this-man-on-twitter/

https://in.news.yahoo.com/narendra-modi-following-commoner-twitter-151228272.html

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/040417/bengaluru-based-boy-tweets-narendra-modi-follows-him.html

http://topyaps.com/swachh-bharat-logo-wedding-card

http://www.storypick.com/modi-following-common-man/

http://hindi.gizbot.com/news/here-is-why-pm-modi-started-following-this-boy-from-bangalore-in-hindi-011999.html

http://www.ashwaghosh.com/india/pm-modi-follows-akash-jain-on-twitter/

http://www.besthindinews.com/2017/04/why-narendra-modi-follow-akash-jain-on-twitter.html

http://www.jagran.com/news/national-meet-this-bengaluru-man-who-is-followed-by-pm-modi-on-twitter-15803190.html

http://crazzlenews.com/national/why-a-commoner-gets-followed-by-narendra-modi-on-twitter-akash-jain-creativity/

http://www.freakyfuntoosh.com/news/PM-modi-retweet-on-akash-jain-post-for-swachchh-bharat-abhiyan-support-by-wedding-card-logo

http://m.navodayatimes.in/news/khabre/clean-india-logo-printed-on-sister-wedding-card/36702/

http://postcard.news/read-pm-modis-response-common-man-twitter-stuns-whole-social-media/

https://sayitloud.in/modi-follow-guy-twitter/

http://www.dailynews360.com/story/news/meet-this-bengaluru-man-who-is-followed-by-pm-modi-on-twitter-1114.html

https://www.indilinks.com/pm-modi-followed-akash-jain-on-twitter-due-to-swacch-bharat-abhiyan-logo-on-wedding-card/

http://giveandgain.shop/news/tweets-do-come-true-why-pm-modi-is-following-this-man-on-twitter/

http://www.ayupp.com/myindia/pm-winning-hearts-a-boy-adds-swachh-bharat-logo-to-wedding-card-14912.html

http://www.patrika.com/news/miscellenous-india/a-wedding-invitation-with-the-swachh-bharat-logo-leaves-pm-narendra-modi-impressed-1544801/

http://www.indiatrendingnow.com/india/pm-modi-liked-wedding-card-and-do-something-amazing-0417/

https://puridunia.com/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A1-%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9F/209905/

http://hindustankhabar.com/77895/

http://allindiaroundup.com/news/pm-modi-is-following-a-common-man-on-twitter/

http://www.newstracklive.com/news/man-who-is-followed-by-pm-narendra-modi-on-twitter-1130338-1.html

http://www.punjabkesari.in/national/news/one-person-won-pm-heart-modi-did-follow-twitter-601288

http://www.loksatta.com/trending-news/read-why-pm-modi-follows-this-man-on-twitter-1445987/

https://satyavijayi.com/amazing-boy-tweeted-sisters-marriage-card-swacch-bharat-logo-narendra-modi-heres-pm/

https://blogbeats.me/beats/blog/2017/04/when_pm_narendra_modi_was_impressed_by_a_common_man/58e24603e4b0873aa6210f09

http://instain.in/2017/04/05/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8B-%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%82-%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%B8-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B8-%E0%A4%AE/

http://www.indianewsclub.com/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A1-%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%96-%E0%A4%AB%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%8F/

http://www.jantakareporter.com/videos/clean-india-printed-on-wedding-card/112595/

http://newsdog.today/a/article/58e261fc1290715cc2ca1da6/

http://www.storynotch.com/boy-tweets-sisters-marriage-card-swachh-bharat-logo-narendra-modi-heres-pm/

https://www.magzter.com/news/654/1984/042017/5u2al

http://www.news18.com/news/india/man-borrows-swachh-bharat-logo-for-sisters-wedding-pm-modi-follows-him-on-twitter-1368584.html

http://www.sify.com/news/why-pm-modi-is-following-this-bengaluru-man-on-twitter-news-national-reewKaebjbici.html

Akash207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, he is known for a single event. Being a "Social media entrepreneur," in itself, does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article, nor does being retweeted. "Real-world" does not equal Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To correct you, it is not just a single retweet or follow back. It is the effect of that action which trigged discussion and popularity in entire nation including all media platforms. What falls under Indian Internet celebrities? There are many articles under that category who became popular due to single event. This article revolves around the same theme. Akash207 (talk)

Keep - The subject has gained instant internet popularity on social media and internet due to the whole swachh bharat idea when narendra modi followed him back on twitter. it falls under internet celebrity category. may be some modifications on page but article should stay. Saregamapa (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)— Ashvin 1351 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Again, he is known for a single event. Being a "Social media entrepreneur," in itself, does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article, nor does being retweeted. "Real-world" does not equal Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, despite wide coverage, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Narendra Modi following a "common man" on Twitter (of all things) is no reason to write an article on them. Modi follows over 1,500 people on Twitter, and since many of them would be "ordinary" citizens, should we allow articles on each and every one of them? At best, the article can be merged with the one on Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (perhaps under a new "reactions" section). — Stringy Acid (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - PM Modi doesn't follow common man. The reason for the wide coverage is because for the first time he retweeted and followed a common man which became a house hold topic in entire India and media. There is a wiki category named Indian Internet Celebrities. There are people who became overnight popular due to single big event. Akash207 (talk)

The (very brief) coverage on Akash Jain lasted less than a week, which is hardly enough time for it to be a "household topic" in a country with population over a billion. Do you have any evidence for the claim that this is the "first time" Modi retweeted a "common man's" tweet? And what's your definition of "common man"? Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF -- just because there are articles similar to this one doesn't mean that this ought to be included. (On another note, I'm surprised by the amount of sockpuppets casting their votes in this AfD.) — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from being WP:1E, the author is likely to have WP:COI , and is also likely canvassing and voting here as a neutral voter. The article clearly has self promotional purpose.ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every bit of the article has been provided with supportive reference. It talks about the subject and the event happened. Akash207 (talk)

Comment - The referencing is not the issue. Again, he is known for a single event. Being a "Social media entrepreneur," in itself, does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article, nor does being retweeted. "Real-world" does not equal Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete--A case of one event notability.Winged Blades^Godric 13:36, 11 April 2017 (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. Feel free to redirect if desired. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tweet (giraffe)

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

Article (almost) meets WP:ONEEVENT. All coverage about this animal is related to a single event, his death - absolutely no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found that is unrelated to that one event. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable flash in the pan.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedaic subject. Loopy30 (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Morphdog (t - c) 20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm skeptical about using the WP:ONEEVENT standard because it's a subsection of a page called "Notability (people)" and Tweet was not a person. Further, it seems like it's being applied to the fact that this (admittedly terrible) article only dwells on one event, not whether or not the subject is genuinely not known for anything else. One listed exception is "Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." On its own, Tweet's tragic end doesn't confer notability. But he was also a cast member of a movie that made over $100 million and starred in multiple Toys "R" Us commercials. Those two additional facts gained Tweet international attention and if this article were kept, they'd obviously be added. So this is a weird situation because the article fails ONEEVENT but its subject doesn't. City Of Silver 00:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zookeeper_(film)#Production where the reliably sourced information about this giraffe already appears. Clearly not one event, because the giraffe appeared in a film and was a business mascot, but the sources in the article and through a Google search don't make it pass the WP:GNG. There is enough to justify it's inclusion in the movie page though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zookeeper_(film)#Production - it's not like he predicted the world cup. Cabayi (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Plantdrew (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Hatun (wife of Şehzade Bayezid)

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

The article doesn't cite any sources, and it seems to be a fabricated article like dozens of other articles that had been created before. There's no mention of her on her alleged husband's article as well. I have no prejudice to recreation if it can be done with reliable sources but I doubt there's any mention of her on historical books. Keivan.f^Talk 20:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source supporting the article, dubious existence given the context of the epidemic of invented articles about the Ottoman family.--Phso2 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I was able to find sources mentioning her alleged husband and children, including daughters, none of them supported even the mere existence of Fatma/Fatima herself ("Hatun" is but a noble title, so disregard that). Images of her supposed burial place, Melik-i Acem, only show 4 tombs. According to a sign outside however ("Şehzadeler Kanuni Sultan Süleyman'ın oğlu Bayezid ve oğulları Osman, Orhan, Abdullah burada metfundur."), these belong to Bayezid and his three sons. Considering the position of women at the time and the fact that the article stays vague about her origin, I doubt that there are sources about her; maybe passing mentions at best if she does turn out real, but nothing to support an in-depth encyclopedic entry—i.e. fails WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NOR. No prejudice to recreation, as Keivan.f says, even if sources are Turkish and/or offline, but there just isn't anything clearly supporting this article, and none online that I/other commentors so far can find it seems. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete as OR. If there were no doubts about its veracity, I might have suggested merging to her husband. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: via wikidata, I found out that the article's Turkish counterpart was deleted via tr:Vikipedi:Silinmeye aday sayfalar/Fatma Haseki Sultan. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rümeysa Hatun

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

The article is completely unsourced, and the subject doesn't seem to be notable as merely being married to a prince doesn't make her a prominent figure. If the article can be rewritten with reliable sources, we can keep it, otherwise it should be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 20:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source supporting the article, dubious existence given the context of the epidemic of invented articles about the Ottoman family.--Phso2 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've yet to see a reputable source about the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2017 (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 Brahmakshatriya. Redirect to better target which covers this more indepth. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murdhabhishikta

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

WP:NOTDICT - more suited for Wikitionary. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brahmakshatriya, where it's given as a synonym. – Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information Object Model

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

I cannot seem to find any standard use for this term. Regardless of that, the usage here appears to me to be obviously invented by the original creator of the article. Note, for example, that the original creator is Maxtsai and the name of the owner of the github user linked on the page is "Max Tsai". It is my understanding that the original author's intention was to create an article for the API that he was in the process of creating. I could not find mentions of the terms "Information Storytelling Engine" and "Information Storytelling Framework" outside of this article. Sjrct (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable, fails WP:GNG. ~barakokula31 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This seems to be a specific one-developer project, where Wikipedia is used as a substitute for Github's own wiki page, probably in the hope of gaining increased exposure. Needless to say that's not what Wikipedia is for. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:02, 8 April 2017 (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. This is not an easy discussion to close. A good case could be made for closing this as No Consensus, but due to the open questions about possible WP:COPYVIO and meeting WP:V, I'm going to go with delete. Both of those are fundamental, inviolable, policies.

There's some pending research and translation efforts. If this hadn't already seen three relists and been open for more than a month, I would relist it to give those time to get finished. But, I think at this point we need some kind of closure. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iio Tazu

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

Article discusses a fictional character but the references don't reflect this. Almost definitely copyright infringement from http://koei.wikia.com/wiki/Tazu_Iio . May not be notable. EDIT: May not be entirely fictional, but no indication of real presence either. RoCo^(talk) 17:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Japanese wiki article (jp:お田鶴の方) makes it clear she is a real figure, though it notes the various versions of her story. The article is relatively well referenced, though it uses a lot of Edo era texts that are not easy to check. Michitaro (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Michitaro: Well, the first reference did not mention her name, so I thought it wasn't reliable. But what about the copyright infringement. I will withdraw this nomination if it's found to be clear of any copyright violation. RoCo^(talk) 13:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep -- Since precise dates are given, I take this to be history, not fiction. Assuming COPYVIO issues do not arise, this relates to an incident of history. I know far too little of Japan to know whether or not this was a notable series of events. If kept, the article needs a lead section to take the reader into the subject, rather than plunging straight inot the midst of events. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Delete While the subject may or may not have existed, the current content is not at all verifiable (and no good version to go back too). It has been entirely copied from Wikia and the sources in the article do not mention anything about the subject. I am unable to find sources. This is ripe for a TNT which will probably allow an interested editor to start again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether the individual is fictional or real is irrelevant. Likewise, COPYVIO is a good reason to blank a page but not to delete it, because the same source could be paraphrased. The only thing that matters is whether the subject has received significant direct coverage in reliable sources (notability and verifiability as per Lemongir). On this I don't see enough of either as-is, but lack knowledge of the subject area to know if this isn't just an article on a notable subject in need of improvement or if it merits going away. Agricolae (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DELETE- Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable nor do the references seem to establish notability. Both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC require require the subject to have received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Neither of the references seem to meet these requirements.

reference 1 - Women Warriors of Japan: Early History is a a promotional site to sell books and not useful for establishing notability. See "Vendor and e-commerce sources".
reference 2 - I was unable to find Otatsu-no-Kata in "Samurai Women 1184-1877" - perhaps she may be referred to under another name although there is very little text about the time period in the 16th century prior to 1573.

Although wikipedia articles can not be used to establish notability per WP:WPNOTRS and WP:USERG. the Japanese wiki article mentioned in a previous comment doesn't appear to be the same person (jp:お田鶴の方). This article states that her spouse is Rinao Iioo [[[:jp:飯尾連竜]]], and the Riano Iioo lists お田鶴の方 as his spouse. I have been unable to find appropriate sources to establish notability in either English or Japanese. CBS527^Talk 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I have struck through my previous concern about the Japanese article appearing to be about a different person based on Curly Turkey translation below, I am satisfied that it is the same person. CBS527^Talk 03:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe jp:飯尾連龍 is Iio Tsuratatsu, the husband listed in our English article of Iio Tazu. I believe this to be correct because I took the Japanese characters listed in the English article for Iio Tsuratatsu, specifically "飯尾連竜" and entered them into the Japanese Wikipedia search engine [14] and jp:飯尾連龍 came up, and the date of death is within one year. I think it is the same person. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Iio Tazu (aka Otatsu no Kata). The Japanese article jp:お田鶴の方 (Towards Tazuru) whose spouse is listed as jp:飯尾連竜 (Riaqno Iioo). His article also lists her as his spouse as well. The subject of this AFD is Iio Tazu and the subject's husband is listed as Iio Tsuratatsu. CBS527^Talk 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese article gives the pronunciation of jp:飯尾連竜 as Inō Tsuratatsu. His father ja:飯尾乗連 is also given as Inō. The article for the clan ja:飯尾氏 gives three pronunciations: Iinō, Inō, and Iio—it doesn't indicate whether you could use any pronunciation, or whether different branches used different pronunciations, or whatever. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Curly Turkey ! That clears up the doubt I had. CBS527^Talk 03:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per [15] (added 00:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)) and possibly per Japanese article (jp:お田鶴の方) and her husband's article (jp:飯尾連龍). I believe it is the correct husband based on the date of death. If someone speaking Japanese could look into this, that would help. I think I know who to ask. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to @Hijiri88: You can read Japanese, right? Can you help us figure this out? There are some questions about what the corresponding Japanese articles are and whether there is sufficient WP:RS in Japanese or elsewhere to justify the article (and probably also the husband's article too). --David Tornheim (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Although we can't use Wikipedia articles to establish notability, the article may lead to some valid sources. CBS527^Talk 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this for a third time because of complicated sourcing/language issues
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to @Curly Turkey: It is my understanding you read Japanese. Can you help us figure this out? If not, can you refer us to someone else who might be qualified? There are some questions about what the corresponding Japanese articles are and whether there is sufficient WP:RS in Japanese or elsewhere to justify the article (and probably also the husband's article too). --David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources are in classical Japanese (of which I have only rudimentary skills) or even kanbun (which I've never tried learning), so it's hard for me to assess, but I'd be very surprised if she didn't pass notability, based on what I do see. A lot of the sources are print-only. I live in Shizuoka (the modern prefecture where she lived), so I'd probably be able to get hold of a lot of them. The problem is motivation ...

I'll tell you what. I'm going to the library tomorrow anyways, so I'll take a look for a couple of sources I can handle to add to the article to save it from deletion. I'd say she most likely has listings in a couple of dictionaries of historical figures at least. I doubt I'll have the motivation to put much more work than that into it, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Perhaps, the IP editor who created the article will be at the library too? :) --David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I'm gonna have to apologize, but it's absolutely pissing rain today, so I'm skipping stopping by the library. I'll probably go next Thursday. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I left this note on the originating IP's talk page and a similar note on another IP that also edited similar articles. Seems like that IP made a bunch of articles like this one with insufficient sourcing. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also requested Bueller 007 who is fluent in Japanese and English to translate the "お田鶴の方". article, which seems to be fairly well sourced, to see if it the same person and if it could be useful for this AFD. I asked for him to respond here. CBS527^Talk 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if notability has been established, the article would need a complete overhaul (could potentially be nuked) to ensure copyright compliance. RoCo^(talk) 07:45, 6 April 2017 (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.

Sorry, folks! I grabbed a book from the library, and then forget to get to this. I guess the article as-is should be deleted anyways due the the copyvio, and it should be at a different title anyways. I'll created an article at Otazu no Kata. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: Thanks again for your help. I was wondering what happened. Could you please ping me at the talk page of the article when it gets created so I can watchlist it? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four-letter abbreviation

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

This isn't a proper thing. Article with no sources. It has three sentences; one is a dictionary definition (and a fairly obvious one at that); and two are wisecracks that, in addition to not being encyclopedic, are original research. Amisom (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the longer version of this article said that it had relevance in computer code, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not encyclopedic, not notable, no significant references, something somebody just made up one day.Glendoremus (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP indeed! Amisom (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It's close to a recursive acronym, and lo and behold, we already have an article on that. It's not worth a redirect, though. Certainly no notability in and of itself. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the term "Four Letter Abbreviation" does come up in searches, the results are pretty much only in the context of talking about things that happen to be acronyms with four letters, and not any sort of overarching concept like the article tries to claim. I'm not sure if this article was completely WP:MADEUP, but it certainly is not notable. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (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 Procedural close. Page was speedy-deleted by Nyttend (G12). (non-admin closure) NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NAFSTS

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

Obscure student organization. All references are from the organization's own website. Fails WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, with no substantial coverage from reliable independent sources. I've also nominated the article for speedy deletion for copyright infringement from http://nafstsnational.com.ng/about-us . The article had already had this material removed (i.e., revdel'd), but it keeps reappearing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2017 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RoCo^(talk) 09:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK Golf

(Find video game sources: "OK Golf" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Subject of the article is unremarkable. Not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. RoCo^(talk) 17:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not in the greatest shape (and is named incorrectly - should be OK Golf), but it has been reviewed by at least three sources deemed reliable by WikiProject Video games: Pocket Gamer, Touch Arcade, and Gamezebo, and received some further coverage from Touch Arcade and Gamezebo. I believe this might be just enough to meet the general notability guideline.--IDV^talk 09:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with IDV, the article is in pretty bad shape, but the references provided show that it is notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. czar 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews in the article and others listed at Metacritic are already enough to pass WP:NVG. And I have moved the article to OK Golf per IDV's suggestion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:13, 8 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Al-Quran Museum

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

fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews for its English or Malay name LibStar (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reasons discussed at similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Youth Museum (closed "no consensus to delete") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museo de Sabanero (ongoing). wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. wp:BEFORE (and searching gnews is insufficient). --do ncr am 19:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you have given zero reasons as to how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You comment on every comment that doesn't agree with you. What a waste of time. --do ncr am 23:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not deter me one bit. I will point out the weaknesses of your arguments every time. Again you fail to demonstrate significant coverage to meet notability. Your arguments are turning into WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT.LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- is this a state-run museum? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not sure. its website is now a dead link. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the museum is big in size, developed by the state government, located within the compound of the state mosque area. It can be found in the local-language online news website, as well as with other 2 references. The article is heavily interlinked with other articles.Chongkian (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

museum being "big" is itself not a criterion for notability. 2 sources confirm who developed it and the third is its own website. I do not see significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources given by Chongkian and the one I added to the article. The museum is notable in my opinion. Altamel (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museo de Sabanero

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

fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews. Only a travel guide provided as a source. No corresponding Spanish article. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a public attraction. Museums, except the most obscure private ones not regularly open, art going to be Wikipedia-notable. There may be a string of odd AFDs going on. At another museum afd recently, the nominator there (whether same editor or not) bizarrely also claimed google news is the right way to tell if a museum is notable, which is nonsense. Actually we should hope museums are not in the news for a fire or scandal; most are not. Wp:BEFORE has not been performed here. --do ncr am 18:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museums are not inherently notable. Again you provide zero reasoning not sources to establish notability. You're saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it was Libstar who nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Youth Museum, which closed no consensus to delete, who bizarrely searched only in Google News. wp:BEFORE. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Also you don't have to reply to every comment that does not agree with you. --do ncr am 23:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we are here to discuss how this museum meets notability guidelines, not the notability of other articles. You have failed to do this. You have not deterred me in fact given me more motivation to find non notable examples. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched under multiple terms and the best I can find is this book source which is not enough to show notability. SL93 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per new sources. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found and added multiple sources to the article, along with the book that SL93 uncovered. The combined weight of these sources demonstrates significant coverage, and therefore notability. Please keep in mind that sources for museum articles may not be visible in an initial search, especially if the institution is in a foreign country. Half of the sources I found were in Spanish. There's an even greater need for extensive searching in foreign AfDs because of the language barrier, and because Google just doesn't index results from non-Anglophone countries that well. Altamel (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Altamel's edits. Google news isn't always be all/end all, especially when there are language issues to consider. StarM 02:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Oscar sardines

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

This article is an avertisement, containing promotional words. It contained those in its very first version. The only source listed is a primary source. This article is WP:TAINTED and should be dealt with. Burning Pillar (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GNG has been met - for example, see [16], [17] and so on. As a side note, please can the nominator stop linking their own essay "WP:TAINTED" in AfD discussions, it's their own opinion, and AfD discussions are based on policies and guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen plenty of essays being linked in deletion discussions like that, and you surely don't have to follow it... if you read it and disagree that's fine. Just tell why it shouldn't be done that way. I just use it in deletion discussions if it's an appropiate summary of what I think of this. Also, that what is written in this essay is what I think about how to ensure that our WP:NPOV standard isn't continuously being undermined by more and more not neutral articles that pile up in Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, then look at these two tips of the iceberg:this here and that. I've seen the "we can improve, retain it" standard, and it just undermines WP:NPOV, if the issues pile on if it is used. My argumentation IS based on policy, even core content policy, on a pillar, even if I just linked an essay.Burning Pillar (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is an essay which you wrote, and has no input from anyone else. It seems like a way to make your opinion seem more important. Please do not cite your personal essay. Edison (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you fellers. There's some merit to the reasoning on both sides. In its present state the article reads like brand promotion, and lacks attributions to neutral sources. On the other hand, this is an iconic, long-lasting brand and reliable sources do exist. [18][19][20] Ideally, I would hope to see the article improved, cleaning up the promotional text and laying out the history with sufficient sourcing to explain why this is more than just another fish brand that's been swallowed up recently by Thai Union. On the assumption that we can do that, I !vote to keep.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's exactly the fallacy I told you about(also, it is an argument that is listedhere). Yes, it can probably be improved. It could also be rewritten from scratch, without having the burden of cleaning up an advertisement mess. As you can see, the number of problematic, but notable articles is hardly going to reduce itself. There is no deadline to articles with poor grammar or such. But if the articles are written not neutral, then they harm the encyclopedia by existing contrary to WP:NPOV, one of the 5 pillars the encyclopedia is built on. Of course, that can be fixed( and my essay does acknowledge that), but that doesn't happen in an acceptable pace for all articles in total. And if an article is really messed up with advertisements, then it IS probably easier to write a new article than to try to indentify and fix the mass of problems(bad weight of sources, OR, non-neutral terms, tone, cherrypicking) some articles have. With the sources provided, it should be possible to make a new article. The current article is little more than a roadblock, and an article written from a NPOV standpoint is much better than an advert someone tried to trim towards WP:NPOV, on average.Burning Pillar (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be, if it passes as keep for notability, but has unacceptable tone, to as necessary clean up the article of problematic or unsourced statements. A stub could result if necessary, with the list of reliable sources demonstrating the notability. An interested enough editor might possibly eventually improve the article... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no actual deletion reason given. Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since sources exist to demonstrate notability as noted in this deletion discussion. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of significant coverage exists. SL93 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "No deletion reason given" "WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP" Did you read? Apparently not. The deletion reason is that this article is, and has constantly been, in violation of WP:NPOV. And if you would read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, you'd notice it allows deletion of such articles.Burning Pillar (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - An essay can't allow deletion of anything. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Manxruler (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have cleaned up the article a bit, to make it look less like a promotional page for the company, and added independent sources. There's room for further improvement, but notability is clearly shown in the article now. --bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retkes identities

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

This seems to be original research and self-promotion Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for similar reasons:

Delete both. I can only find one use of the term "Retkes identity"; if there is anything worth keeping (the exposition is so bare, it's hard to tell), it could better be said at Hermite–Hadamard inequality. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, I agree with the nomination; information about the subject seems to only be based on the work of the originator, so fails NOR/NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:30, 6 April 2017 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata Mandal

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

Apparently non-notable Indian writer. The only source is a Facebook link, and I found nothing in a search[21] of Google News. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA autobiography by User:Rjsubrata9, also with edits by another SPA User:Rjsubrata. No claim of notability in the article (and are the offered Facebook and Twitter accounts sufficient for WP:BLPPROD?) and while the tailored Wikiproject India search returns various news articles mentioning individuals named Subrata Mandal, I am seeing nothing for this particular case. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per AllyD. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 11:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Birger

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

All the sources are written by the subject himself with none toward him by others, meaning this article fails on notability. Donnie Park (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after a Google search for newspaper articles or reviews on his work, I'm leaning towards delete. I didn't find much, mostly mentions of his comments on articles about tangential topics. I looked for reviews of his book, and while the book is mentioned quite a bit in the mainstream media, the book itself is not the central topic of conversation in those articles. Yvarta (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of indepth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Starting off with his speaking engagement at the Cato Institute (which is already included in the article), we also have this in the Boston Globe, this on WCVB, this on GreenwhichTime], this from WaPo, and this from Deseret News, and that's just what I found on the first 3 pages of the search. A search which is made more difficult by how many articles he's published. He's had major articles in The New York Times, New York Magazine, The Observer, Money, Washington Post, and Time. And again, that's just what I found on the first 3 pages of the search. Passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR 3, since he has "created ... a significant or well-known work..." and that work has "been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews":
- Christianity Today [22]
- The Guardian[23]
- Kirkus[24]
- Glamour magazine[25]
- The Daily Beast [26]
- New York Times [27]
- VICE Media [28]
- ABC [29]
- Washington Post [30]
- The Federalist[31]
- Marie Claire[32]
- Washingtonian[33]
- NY Post[34]
- Miami New Times[35]

The article obviously needs help, but he meets the notability criteria.--Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per a review of available sources, passes WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 12 April 2017 (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. Per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater (course)

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable (fails the WP:GNG). This is because the article is currently unreferenced and a WP:BEFORE search found no useful results. The article is also WP:MILL as it is an article about a course when many others exist (with similar sourcing). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's even meant by "course": "This is a second Super Mario Maker course. This is a underwater course, but can't changed to overworld." This is about Super Mario gameplay? Delete per nom, whatever it is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not a video game walkthrough. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In no way is this an acceptable article. Maproom (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unclear, unsourced and WP:NOTGUIDE - Remarkably similar to World 8-4 supposedly by a different editor - Arjayay (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTGUIDE. Maybe there's a Wikia wiki the author could move it to? ~barakokula31 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject does not rise to the level of meriting an article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:MILL article with no claim of importance. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. bojo | talk 16:04, 5 April 2017 (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 X Factor (Denmark season 9). There is not a consensus to delete, but there is a clear consensus for some option other than keeping the article as it is. Redirected and protected against recreation absent a new consensus. bd2412 T 18:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reem (singer)

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

Non-notable reality tv contestant. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9) as it has been for some time and then protect against recreation as this is persistently being recreated. Also do the same for Reem Hamze. anemoneprojectors 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've now protected the redirect Reem Hamze as it was recreated, probably as a way to avoid this AFD. anemone projectors 18:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks AnemoneProjectors - that's a good point. Whatever the decision of this AfD is, it should also apply to Reem Hamze. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment protection may not be needed now as the persistent sockpuppetry has stopped since it was detected and certain accounts were blocked. But if the article is redirected by consensus and then is still recreated, it could be protected then. anemone projectors 10:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - might want to consider salting the article as well, in light of the continued vandalism and disruptive editing on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't see notable citations. Odds of finding notable citation for a reality show contestant seem very slim. Knox490 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO #2 with her single "All That I Want". It charted in the Danish charts at #33 exactly a year ago, according to Hung Medien. Fuebaey (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting single. KaisaL (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer, having a weak charting single only says they may be notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think having a weak charting single in this case shouldn't mean the article is kept - as she still clearly fails WP:GNG. For the UK version of The X Factor, we create lists of contestants such as List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9) because they're mostly not notable enough for an independent article. If our sockpuppet had done this, it wouldn't have been so bad. Or if the article actually had some information about this Reem person, rather than just a table and a list with one entry, then I might be changing my mind. If The X Factor is as big in Denmark as it is in the UK, there should be some interest in the contestants and some information, but it may take a Danish speaker to find this. Or maybe we could look to the Danish Wikipedia for inspiration (da:Reem). anemone projectors 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This Afd was closed, but brought to Deletion Review. The result of that review was to find no fault with the original close per-se, but relist given the discovery of additional sources (which are listed on the DRV page), so I've backed out the previous close. This third relisting period should be used to evaluate those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. A low placing on one country chart doesn't mean all our policies get tossed out the window, especially as we'd be left with a (very dangerous) unreferenceable BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Barfoed, Jirina (2016-10-28). "Reem i ny rolle foran kameraet". Se og Hør (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  There is full speed ahead of Reem Hamze after she participated in "X Factor" where she ended up in a super nice second place. Since then she has a record contract with Sony Music, and then she landed the job as a museum for Cecilie Bahnsen, who won the Danish Design Talent prize and half a million kroner yesterday.
2. Olsen, Maria Rode (2016-02-27). "X Factor-Reem elsker at danse". Billed Bladet (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  Reem had challenged herself in Friday's "X Factor" live show by not only singing the song "Lost in the girl", but also showing her skills on a dance floor at the same time.
  It was in collaboration with judge Mette Lindberg that the 17-year-old soloist had come to impress with choreography during his performance.
  ...
  Throughout the eight years, there has been room for a bit of each, but it is primarily the hip-hop, freestyle and dancehall genre that Reem likes most.
  She has been taught at several dance schools in Zealand, and now she is dancing with a friend at a youth school approximately twice a week.
3. Vestergaard, Andreas Erboe (2016-03-04). "Reem afslører: Jeg var totalt pinligt berørt over at skulle synge". BT (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  
  Reem is born and raised in Denmark. Half of her family lives in Palestine, and the other half lives in Lebanon. It was on a holiday in Lebanon, where they visited the family that, as a 12-year-old, she was ready to give her a testimony of her huge song talent. In front of his father's family. That is, his nine siblings and their children, which meant a total of 30-35 people. The mother's 13 siblings and their children were not present in the small apartment. It was the parents idea that she should sing in front of the big family. They had noticed the extraordinary talent of the daughter - but only unfolded within the four walls of the home in Valby near Copenhagen. It was a big mouthful for a little girl who was very shy at that time.
  ...
  Reem participates in this year's 'X Factor', and she has by-law judges and Denmark by storm. The teenager has Managed to touch Judge Mette Lindberg to tears with his incredible voice, which leads to Amy Winehouse - the now-deceased English song star, to which Reem everywhere is compared.
  ...
  In the past many hours have been spent in the dance room. For eight years, the sporty girl went to dance and folded Out in hip hop. The combination of singing and dancing is also something she admires with Beyoncé, Rihanna, Jennifer Lopez and Amy Winehouse, who she has been compared to.
4. Hansen, Jan Lambæk (2016-04-02). "Reportage: Mest spændende X Factor-finale til dato". Gaffa (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  
  This year's X Factor is also exciting because the show has a participant who has shown internationally from the start. I'm thinking of the favorite Reem. In addition to a nice voice and a strong singing talent, she also has the ability to occupy the entire room when she is on stage. You are quickly drawn to her self-confidence and charm. And thanks to her dance skills, she also knows how to move on a scene.
  ...
  After a short videoconference, Reem shows up and opens the living space with Zara Larsson's "Never Forget You". ...
  ...
  My high expectations for Reem are happily fulfilled as she performs the Bieber / Skrillex hit "Where Are You Now?". Judge Mette Lindberg was quite right when she initially said that Reem wanted to show everything she could. She is lost. She is a 17-year-old green poll, but acts like a diva. Diva in the cool way. She has so much authority and is undoubtedly the biggest, and perhaps the first real, X Factor star in Denmark.
  ...
  However, Reem puts its competitors on the wall when she sings Lukas Graham's vocal on "Golden" along with Brandon Beal . Not only because of her singing talent, but also because of her stage performance. Even Christopher , whom she also has a duet with, must bow in the dust. Reem is born to stand on a stage. And she will also be exciting in 30 years.
  ...
  Unfortunately, Reem's potential win song "All That I Want" is a boring case. It is screwed together in a pop-up machine without spark. A number you soon forget. And it seems she does not feel at home in that number. Could she even think about it? Still, I see her as a winner, and the faster she can get rid of the X Factor links, the better for a real music career.
5. "By night med X Factor". da:Morsø Folkeblad (in Dutch). 2016-08-03. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  For a long time, Reem Hamze was considered a favorite to win X Factor, with the best odds on Danish Games. In the final on April 1, 2016, Reem had to finish second in the song contest. However, she was offered a plate contract immediately after the end. Gaffa's reviewer rated her with "She has so much authority and is undoubtedly the biggest, and perhaps first real, X Factor star in Denmark." Reem's voice has been compared to Amy Winehouses.
6. Ellegaard, Christian (2016-02-27). "Tak far: Derfor er Reem med i X Factor" (in Dutch). DR. Archived from the original on 2017-05-02. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
  From Google Translate:
  Friday after Friday, 17-year-old Reem shines on stage when she sings and dances on in X Factor.
  And the young singer - and the Danish television viewers - have one particular person to thank Reem today for the X Factor scene.
  Namely Reem's father.
  According to Reem, her father's merit was that the 17-year-old star spy discovered that her singing talent stretched beyond the usual.
  On a holiday he asked Reem to sing for the rest of the family, and afterwards her family was speechless about the young girl's singing talent.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reem to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RoySmith (talk · contribs), for your kind words at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 1. In the spirit of discussing the sources as your close implores, I'll start. Among other sources, Reem has received significant coverage in Billed Bladet, a 150,000 circulation magazine that is one of the oldest magazines in Denmark; and DR, a Danish public-service organization that is Denmark's oldest and largest electronic media enterprise. I think the coverage in longstanding reputable Denmark sources strongly establishes that Reem passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Cunard's discovered sources clearly meet the WP:MUSICBIO bar and should be incorporated into the article. A Train^talk 12:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep weak because I'm having a hard time evaluating the reliability of the sources. But coverage looks deep enough to meet WP:N assuming the sources are reliable. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I closed this yesterday since it appeared to me that new sources spawned a blizzard, however I was asked by the original closing admin Scottywong to reconsider. In light of the deletion review closing with an explicit instruction to review and discuss the new sources, I am reverting my close so that discussion of those sources may continue. For the purposes of administration, this is not a relist. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I also recreated the redirect Reem Hamze yesterday, but did not carry up semiprotection as it does not appear necessary on the redirect at the moment. It should go as this goes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Mjbmr (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (updated to "redirect", pls see below) -- according to sources presented, the singer has just been offered a contract. When Reem releases a notable album, then it would be appropriate to have an article. Otherwise, WP:TOOSOON. Sources presented at this AfD are either passing mentions or not independent of the subject, as in:

According to Reem, her father's merit was that the 17-year-old star spy discovered that her singing talent stretched beyond the usual. On a holiday he asked Reem to sing for the rest of the family, and afterwards her family was speechless about the young girl's singing talent.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, the two !votes above aren't really looking at the sources. Rather it's more of a "WP:JNN" argument (well one is 100% that). Hobit (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I've looked at the sources. In fact, I've quoted from the sources: "According to Reem, her father's merit was..." etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did. And it's a JNN argument from what I can tell. We don't much care why she's notable. Only that the sources are in depth, reliable and independent. That a quote comes from her father doesn't make the source doing the quoting "not independent" in any way. I suspect we have books on former presidents that quote their parents. Doesn't invalidate the source. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I barely find any sources in English. Mjbmr (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is also irrelevant to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is actually, there is not enough coverage to prove notability. Mjbmr (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no requirement that the sources be in English. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say that, but to me which I gave my opinion, should found enough coverage to be notable for English Wikipedia. Mjbmr (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with the statement ...sources are in depth, reliable and independent. That a quote comes from her father doesn't make the source doing the quoting "not independent" in any way. The quote comes from Reem ("according to Reem...") -- this is the definition of a non-independent source. Interviews in general are not SIGCOV sources for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9) as it has been for some time and then protect against recreation. (Updated iVote). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9). The sources presented, IMO, do not constitute enough reliable significant coverage for a stand-alone article. Protection is an option if this is going to keep getting re-created. Reyk _YO! 21:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9). coverage inadequate to support notability.10:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)
Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9). I strongly support K.e.coffman's proposal to protect against recreation as well. Ifnord (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X Factor (Denmark season 9) per above. Semiprotect the redirect only if it becomes evident that users will not respect this consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as G12 copyright violation. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Motilal Shastri

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

{{{text}}} Sanirudha (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Pandit Motilal Shastri

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandit Motilal Shastri

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:21, 5 April 2017 (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. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 16:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of solitary animals

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

If done properly, this list will include almost all animal species in the world--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to find references. I did a Google search on "what animals are loners?" and this article popped up first, answered my question, so I could go back to writing my article. Then I noticed that it was flagged for deletion. Say what?! Coming here to read why, the explanation is that if all such animals were listed, it would be too long. If that is the case, change the title to "List of familiar solitary animals" or some other qualifier.

In my case, I wanted to find some quick examples for a social essay... "bear" and "tiger" were the best for my essay. Sure, in hindsight, I already knew that, but it was a quick way to tickle my mind. That is the beauty of the Internet, especially how Google searches and Wikipedia make it easy.

The article works. Effectiveness is the measure. Miguel Madeira does not understand the value because his definition of "properly" is flawed. What he means to say is "comprehensively", which in this case would be improper because it defeats the purpose of the article. This is a useful article. Leave it. ClassicalScholar 09:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Solitary animal, where a list already appears. I agree that a well-done stand-alone list would be a daunting task, several prominent examples are all that's needed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted, this is a hole without bottom. Even solitary animal strikes me as somewhat superfluous and containing completely arbitrary examples. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added re categorization: I wouldn't bother with turning it into a category either. The concept is just too broad to ever find comprehensive application, so we'll end up with a random selection of articles categorized as such, and likely not even containing the cases one would consider particularly illustrative.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solitary animal, where a smaller, more manageable list is already included. This is a hopelessly expansive list, and a target of sporadic vandalism to boot. ansh 666 18:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize then redirect instead. Note that the reason given for deletion "If done properly, this list will include probably almost all animal species in the world" is incorrect. As the main article (Solitary animals) states, this is not a list of animals that may be solitary at some point in their lives, but for most of their life.

In any case, solitariness is an adaptation, and many adaptations are already categorized at Category:Animals by adaptation, even if they have numerous entries (the main objection to the list). While the main article (Solitary animals) can summarize, it should not have an exhaustive list. That belongs to a category.

Create a new category under Category:Animals by adaptation called Category:Solitary animals
For each animal in the List of solitary animals,
1. Add it to Category:Solitary animals.
2. Ensure that the citation to solitariness (in the list, if any) is included in the animal's article.
Add Category:Solitary dolphins and Solitary animals to Category:Solitary animals
Redirect List of solitary animals to Category:Solitary animals

Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no new categories. Be Aware of category clutter, we don't need categories for every conceivable adaptation. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize then redirect instead. This seems to be a high-quality response that dovetails with WP guidelines, so I agree with it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. This is an absurd case of railroading. What is the verifiable source of "If done properly, this list will include almost all animal species in the world" because it is nonsense. Eddaido (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"absurd"? "railroading"? "nonsense"? Language as immoderate as this seems, in the context, lost and confused to me. Can you explain what you are trying to communicate? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the "if done properly, this list will include almost all animal species in the world". Take, not the animals, not the chordates, not the mammals, not the Carnivora, but only the felids. Solitary species:

Tiger (Panthera tigris)

Jaguar (Panthera onca)

Leopard (Panthera pardus)

Snow leopard (Panthera uncia)

Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa)

Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi)

Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata)

Bay cat (Catopuma badia)

Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii)

Caracal (Caracal caracal)

African golden cat (Caracal aurata)

Serval (Caracal serval)

Pantanal cat (Leopardus braccatus)

Colocolo (Leopardus colocolo)

Geoffroy's cat (Leopardus geoffroyi)

Kodkod (Leopardus guigna)

Southern tigrina (Leopardus guttulus)

Andean mountain cat (Leopardus jacobitus)

Pampas cat (Leopardus pajeros)

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)

Oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus)

Margay (Leopardus wiedii)

Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)

Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)

Bobcat (Lynx rufus)

Cougar (Puma concolor)

Jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi)

Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)

Iriomote cat (Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis)

Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps)

Rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)

Fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)

Pallas's cat (Otocolobus manul)

Jungle cat (Felis chaus)

Sand cat (Felis margarita)

Black-footed cat (Felis nigripes)

Wildcat (Felis silvestris)

Chinese mountain cat (Felis silvestris bieti)

(all except lion, domestic cat and cheetah); even if I am wrong and one or two of the above are not really solitary, we have dozens of solitary animals in only one family; or look to the 400,000 species of coleoptera - besides the Nicrophorus (68 species), there is any other that it is not solitary? Perhaps, but even if only half (instead that, as I suppose, more than 95%) of the coleoptera are solitary, we will have a list with 200,000 entries, only in one order.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An additional observation - even with billions of solitary animals to choose, the list gets to include some social animals, like the badger; this indicates that this list is impossible to manage in practice--MiguelMadeira (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - About half the 34,000 described fish species shoal at some stage in their life. The rest are basically solitary and should end up on this list. But that's only the beginning. There are over one million described insect species, and perhaps another ten million yet to be described. Most of these are solitary, and will end up on the list. This means the article will need maybe thousands of editors to help it become more complete. It will finish up many tens of megabytes long, much longer than the bible – a truly monumental Wikipedia undertaking and something risible Wikipedia could become widely known for. However, all is not lost. I propose deleting this splendidly silly article and replacing it with its potentially shorter and therefore more manageable and slightly less silly complementary article, List of non-solitary animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a lonely life out there in the animal kingdom. the vast majority of species are solitary. building and managing such a list would be an immense undertaking and the results would be completely uninteresting.Glendoremus (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the cost/benefit of creating such an article would not stack up. Better to use editor resources elsewhere. Knox490 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To categorize or not to categorize?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List articles are only really useful if they're manageable and at least substantially complete. This one will never be those things, it will forever be a "List of certain solitary animals". It's pointless now since it only contains a few random examples of the huge number of solitary animals that exist, but would be equally pointless if it were complete because then it would be ridiculously long. Neiltonks (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to solitary animal and Redirect - Others have made a convincing case that this is just far too large of a grouping to make for an appropriate list topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plainly useful for our core readership -- students -- and ~~not needlessly~~ duplicative of either the main article or of the category. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bearian: I confess to being surprised by this vote of yours (immediately above). To vote in that manner at this stage seems obstructive to achieving a rational result here. You really need to explain whether you are just being willfully obstructive, or whether, having carefully considered the other comments above, you genuinely have credible reasons for for thinking this list might be useful. It is not good enough to just baldly declare that the list is "plainly useful for our core readership", and then leave that authoritarian-style statement dangling, unsupported with a single rationale. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Epipelagic, please be civil and assume good faith. Of course this list would be useful to some of our readers. Whether it would be overwhelming, or less useful than a category, for the majority of our readers and users, is another question. Upon review, I see how this list could be just too much to handle. On the balance, a category rather than a lost would be much better in this instance. I know that may not be a really cogent argument, but that is what I see now. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Habbegger

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

Minor football coach. Sourcing for the article appears to be almost nonexistent. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has managed senior international football. RSSSF shows he was the manager of Bolivia in 1989. Article needs expanding, not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:19, 7 April 2017 (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 Hanson (band). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Hanson

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

Not notable outside of his band Hanson (band). All the content in his article is already in the band's article, except for the trivia stuff about his wife and kids. I've also nominated his brother Zac's article here. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hanson (band). Exemplo347 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanson (band), not independently notable but he may be searched for individually. Jellyman (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hanson (band). I have to agree. This is not independently notable. He hasn't done anything outside of the group, so there is nothing to report or search for. Horizonlove (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Everyone above has the reasons pretty well covered. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Rath

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

Delete: non-notable karateka. Tragic (unexplained) death at a young age does not confer notability. Quis separabit? 12:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the coverage seems to stem from his death (WP:ONEEVENT). In addition, he doesn't appear to he meet the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2017 (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. See nominator's comment below (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hochschule für jüdische studies

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

Bishal revenger (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishal revenger: Please can you add a reason for the deletion quickly, or I'll be closing this AfD discussion per WP:SKCRIT. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: The article has multiple issues

Poorly created
Has no reference at all

Bishal revenger (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The reasons given for deletion are actually reasons for improvement. No valid deletion rationale has been provided. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will be releasing the tag and keep for maintenance then. Gracias Bishal revenger (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osborne Training

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

Non-notable training company that does not meet the General Notability Guideline. Sources located through a WP:BEFORE search were all PR, "Advertorial" or passing mentions. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage can be found. SL93 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is sourced to advertising listings and press releases and I am finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2017 (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 Hanson (band). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Hanson

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

Not notable outside of his band Hanson (band). All the content in his article is already in the band's article, except for a mention about an Australian musical he's supposedly working on. However, no source is given to support this and I couldn't find anything on google about this musical or his involvement in it, so I'm not sure where this information came from. I've also nominated his brother Isaac's article here. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hanson (band), not independently notable but he may be searched for individually. Jellyman (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this should be redirected but I agree with the opening statement. I think the user who added the part about his 'Current Projects' should be questioned about that info and be asked to provide a source. If the user can't provide one, then the only thing this page is notable for is stating Zac's personal life, in which it could incorporated into the Hanson article. Horizonlove (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've asked the user on their talk page to provide a source and informed them about this nomination/discussion. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennv3771: I looked the user who added that "Update" and s/he hasn't made an edit since January 2017. Truthfully I don't think this page is going to get a source that supports their claim. With that being said, I vote for a Redirect to the Hanson article. Horizonlove (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mendez Family

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. No indication of notability. Only one notable member. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. A single Chabad.org citation does not notability make (and I might add there are instances of close-paraphrasing from that source in this article). We already have an article on Joseph Nasi which is where this sort of content could be developed. This article is near incoherent and worthy of WP:TNT. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but a redirect to either Joseph Nasi, or Gracia Mendes Nasi might be OK as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete - Isn't this the same as the Benveniste family? I suppose merge or redirect is possible, although delete seems fine. Perhaps Beneveniste should be added to Mendes (disambiguation) (usual spelling seems to be Mendes) and to Mendez (disambiguation). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. Indeed, were this article to remain, it needs to be moved to a namespace specific to this family grouping to avoid massive confusion. Most people named Mendez have nothing whatsoever to do with this Sephardic Jewish group and there is no reason to think people who search for 'Mendez family' would be interest in this particular Mendes clan. Even were there some material of value to merge with Benveniste, the only acceptable redirect for the existing namespace would be to Mendez (the surname disambig page). Agricolae (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect, probably to Joseph Nasi, adding notes to the two dab pages mentioned by Smurphy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2017 (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 Mick Foley#personal life. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle Foley

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

Relative of wrestler with no independent notability. This seems like a prime example of TOOSOON.★Trekker (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mick Foley#personal life like it was before April 4 when user:James Aron Bond put a horrendous article in it's place. MPJ-DK 11:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2017 (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/2017 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Mick Foley#personal life. No notability separate from her father. Nikki♥311 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Mick Foley#personal life, WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2017 (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity South Korean military conscripts

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All men have been subject to conscription in South Korea for the past 50+ years, but this list covers only the past decade. This is for "notable conscripts", but the list in entirely arbitrary and centered almost entirely around Korean pop idols. To put this in perspective, "15,423 actors reported their income in 2015" [36]. About half will be men. Between those alone, that would account for 7,500+ entries. Now take into account the 4,587 singers (half being men), 30,898 athletes (a majority, if not a vast majority, being men), and we're looking at least 25,000 entries, as most of them will serve in the military, sans those who successfully dodged it at their own expense or the few who are exempt from serving (like Inati of DMTN). Now add the notable conscripts of the past 50 years on top of all that, and what purpose does this list serve? This is neither a suitable nor manageable topic. ℯ xplicit 11:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: indiscriminate (WP:NOT) for a country where all males are conscripted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems indiscriminate to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:25, 10 April 2017 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanna Yannotti

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

Non notable actress (her roles in the three named films are all "uncredited"). All the sources are about her husband, not about her, so I redirected this page to that article. This was reverted. I don't really care whether this is a redirect or just gone completely from wikipedia, but the subject certainly lacks the notability to support a separate article, so at AfD we are! Fram (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability whatsoever.★Trekker (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indication of notability are having. Definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.98.140 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No she's not. There is nothing here to indicate notability.★Trekker (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe he just made it the article, but you guys just have to do classified and expand to do it more. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.101.48 (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) [Double vote negated][reply]

That's not our job. Do it yourself if you want it to be kept.★Trekker (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability from what I can see. I have seen a slew of articles from James Aron Bond, without notability, no proper sources and poorly written. MPJ-DK 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some uncredited roles only. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is this a joke? Passing mentions of someone do not indicate notability per GNG. 172.110.215.151 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The two votes from 112.134.X.X are blatantly the same person, and most likely the creator logged out. The chances of two people with incredibly similar IPs, on the same ISP, in the same country, commenting on the same Wikipedia deletion vote... why am I even explaining this? 172.110.215.151 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that the article has moved to Giovanna Angle. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2017 (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. My previous relist was a mistake, possible a bug with the closing script I use. The consensus is clear that this professor doesn't meet our notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prof M M Pant

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC. Article is grossly promotional. Another admin declined CSD A7 and G11 nominations. (The A7 I kinda sorta can accept, but if this is not unambiguous promotion then there is no such thing.) Ad Orientem (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that there should be a wiki article on Prof Pant. He is one of the acclaimed public figures in the field of education in India. One may discuss how objectively the article has been written and whether the contents have been supported by reliable third party references or not. I am sure I shall be able to provide such references in a couple of days. I have already provided one. But to delete it outright from Wikipedia would be grossly unfair. Arunbandana (talk) 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS cites not enough for WP:Prof#C1, other categories not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Pro vice chancellor not quite enough for WP:PROF#C6, other categories not passed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not just for the fact that he was a Pro Vice Chancellor of a leading university of India but also by the way he is influencing the teachers and professors in the field of education in India and those from at least 20 countries in the world by his innovative Mobile MOOCS today. He must have conducted more than 15 such mobile MOOCS in subjects such as Flash Fiction, Life Long Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Finance, MOOCS etc. A simple google search of his name gives you such obvious results of his contribution in terms of his earlier research papers and most importantly his recent lectures in various educational institutions about the tsunami of change that that is overtaking the present system of education. Arunbandana (talk) arunbandana 17:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject doesn't pass WP:PROF. Pro-vice-chancellors are deputies to the vice-chancellor, and are usually appointed for temporary periods. In fact, the subject's own curriculum vitae states that he was the pro-vice-chancellor of IGNOU only "briefly". Other positions the subject has held aren't notable and too few citations to pass WP:PROF#C1. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relist to discuss IsaacSt's sources. Prior delete !votes means a withdraw is out of order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:17, 13 April 2017 (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 by nominator. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schostal

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Photos bought by museums, but were they exhibited? Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article looks like a stub, but this is a historical photo agency labeled by Europeana as "one of the most recognized photograph agencies of the inter-war period, with branches in Vienna, Paris, Milan and Berlin." ([37]). According to the German Historical Museum, "Schostal was one of the largest agencies of the 1920s and 1930s", as described in their book “People, places, times: Photography at the German Historical Museum” ([38]) as well as in their exhibition about the 20th century ([39]). Clearly notable. Citing and more in-depth info would benefit the article, but AfD is not the place to work that out. -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per above. Thanks, IsaacSt. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2017 (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 by nominator. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schostal

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Photos bought by museums, but were they exhibited? Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article looks like a stub, but this is a historical photo agency labeled by Europeana as "one of the most recognized photograph agencies of the inter-war period, with branches in Vienna, Paris, Milan and Berlin." ([40]). According to the German Historical Museum, "Schostal was one of the largest agencies of the 1920s and 1930s", as described in their book “People, places, times: Photography at the German Historical Museum” ([41]) as well as in their exhibition about the 20th century ([42]). Clearly notable. Citing and more in-depth info would benefit the article, but AfD is not the place to work that out. -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per above. Thanks, IsaacSt. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Matthews

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

fails NGOLF DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NGOLF, not notable. Tewapack (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Tewapack: and @DarjeelingTea: How does Matthews fail NGOLF when he has one professional victory to his credit?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments for deletion, please see comments of where Brandon Matthews meets policy via the following criteria:

1. Brandon Matthews has won at least one professional golf tournament: PGA TOUR LATINOAMERICA - Molino Cañuelas Championship ^[1]

2. Men: 2013 U.S. Open -First alternate - Merion ^[2] DanielleMaslany (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Speedy Keep He's won a pro golf tournament on an established tour. That means he passes NGOLF. The article is a mess but that's not an excuse to delete....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the article as this clearly passes NGOLF. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as recent winner. Nigej (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please excuse me, this article was a bit of a mess in its original form and it was difficult to understand. I see now that he did win a PGA event in Argentina on the basis of which it passes NGOLF. Withdraw as nom. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JAMACADA CULUMTA BADA IYO KALUUMAYSIGA EE BERBERA

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

Based on a very poor machine translation, this appears to be about a non-notable education program about fishing which has no references. It is unlikely to be improved by translation. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as borderline patent nonsense. Ajf773 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it is patent nonsense. It is written in Somalian language. Translated it describes an extension or agreement between World Maritime University and the Berbera Maritime & Fisheries Academy. The agreement is describe here: [43] I think. It really described how things are going well. scope_creep (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Patent nonsense does not apply to articles that are not in English. I think that there should be a criterion for deleting non-English articles, but there isn't, but a poor machine translation indicates nothing worth translating. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is in Somalian, it should be translated in a draft before transclusion into article space. This is not the Somalian Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia. To an English-speaker, that article looks like nonsense. South Nashua (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because as Robert says this is about a non notable program and overly promotional. However to clarify some of the above, not being in English does not make an article nonsense as per the CSD criterion, however an article can be in another language and be nonsense in said language and therefore speedy deleted--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RickinBaltimore per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Aase

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

Lacks inline citation 67nov (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2017 (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/2017 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:G7 - the creator of this AfD is the creator of the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2017 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okon Goes to School

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

The film fails WP:GNG and WP:NFO. It has not received full-length reviews. None of the sources in the article discusses the film. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM and GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I could not find any full scale formal reviews, I found plenty of mentions of the film, its predecessor Okon Lagos and its sequel Lost in London, and I think it meets WP:GNG. The article needs expansion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Please list the "plenty of mentions" you found so we can evaluate them. Significant coverage in reliable sources is needed to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Movie was a popular movie nationwide, ^[1] mentioned on Premium Times, All Africa, Pulse Nigeria, Information Nigeria, the nation newspaper^[2] etc, all which are reliable sources. Zazzysa (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Ukpong1: None of the sources in the news link discusses the film. Popularity is not synonymous with notability. A film isn't suitable for stand-alone inclusion simply because it is popular. The Nation source you mentioned doesn't discuss the film either; the author of the article is simply giving his opinion about the films they're looking forward to in 2017. As a matter of fact, I don't see the film listed anywhere in the article. How can a film, which was supposedly released in 2012, be "listed" in the article titled "Most anticipated MOVIES of 2017"? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: According to google there is a mention of "Okon Goes to school" in The Nation. Please check the first ref link provided below. Zazzysa (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukpong1: The article published by The Nation newspaper only states the film's title and doesn't discuss it. I don't understand why you think this film meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. If you can provide me with a reliable source that discusses the film, I will change my stance from delete to keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cwmhiraeth. Stanleytux (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto to User:Stanleytux and User:Cwmhiraeth. --Oskinet (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cwmhiraeth. I looked at a couple of sources in the article and they convey significance. For example one provides dozens of photos of celebrities at the movie premier, plus photos of theatre ushers dressed in theme with the movie; this isn't in-depth coverage of the movie per se, right I get that, but it is clearly a popular movie. --do ncr am 01:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Lmao at your response. So you're essentially saying that dozens of photos at a movie premier is enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Popularity is not synonymous with notability. A film shouldn't have a stand-alone article simply because it is "popular". By the way, the film is not popular whatsoever. It wasn't nominated for any awards in Nigeria and isn't listed among the List of highest-grossing Nigerian films. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 09:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That adds nothing to what I said, IMO. It's not necessary, in fact it is a tad irritating, for a deletion nominator to comment on everything. --do ncr am 02:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is the dream of every actor to get that role in that notable film that will change the direction of his career. Think of Wesley Snipes as Blade in Blade 1, 2 and trinity. I believe Imeh Bishop got that when he starred in the titular role in this film. Since his oscar worthy performance in this film, the media continue to refer to "Okon Lagos" when talking about him. Obviously because the film added more valour to comedy films in Nigeria, giving Akwa Ibom natives an indigenous humorous identity. The film is of huge encyclopedic importance when expanding the comedy genre of Cinema of Nigeria article. Imeh Bishop is a main player in that light. So many references exist where the film was referenced in discussing the titular character, just use Google. Not too convenient for me now to add here. I hope I didn't run foul of talking too much on the actor, not the film. Darreg (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: Everything you've said doesn't prove that the film was discussed in reliable sources. Show me a reliable source that discusses the film. Show me a reliable website that wrote a review about the film. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that prove notability. All the refs show is that the film exists, that isn't enough. --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable film. Google searches turn up no significant coverage and HighBeam turns up 0 sources. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are plenty of mentions of the movie in the various sources that come up in searches, not a single one of them is even close to the in depth discussion needed to establish notability. They are all pretty much one to two sentence mentions that the movie exists, and WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article. Pretty much every source currently in the article is about a completely different topic, and just mentions the movie tangentially, and searches bring up nothing better. Saying that the movie was "popular" is not enough to establish notability unless there are also reliable sources that talk about the film in depth, and so far, I have not seen a single one. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources needed to satisfy general notability, and also does not satisfy the specific guideline for films. Multiple mentions is insufficient. Edison (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passes basic notability guidelines as per WP:GNG also as per WP:GNG an article need not pass every guideline stated in WP:GNG @Versace1608 what you should have done, was communicate through the articles talk or simply, go straight to the article creator @Darreg & communicate to him your issues concerning the article and then given him time to work on it, then if that fails you could now nominate it for deletion. I feel this was rather too harsh, as you both are Nigerian editors and this issue could have been resolved "in-house" I feel it's just a show of mutual respect and courtesy to first communicate with the content creator your concerns and issues with his/her article rather than just nominate it, as you both have good history together and are not unfamiliar to each other.Celestina007 (talk) 11:47, 07 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: You are wrong on so many levels. For starters, Darreg did not create the article. If you look at the article's page information, you'll clearly see that Ukpong1 created the article on 15 March 2017. For your info, I do not need to communicate with anyone before nominating an article for deletion. It is wrong to think that nominators need to do this. My decision to nominate the article wasn't harsh in any way, shape, or form. If I come across an article not suitable for stand-alone inclusion, I am going to nominate it for deletion. I should also point out that your assumption about me is wrong. I am not from Nigeria. I am pretty sure Darreg respects my nomination although he disagrees with me. You claimed that the film meets WP:GNG. Can you show me

a reliable source that discusses the film. If you do, I'll change my stance from delete to keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted keep above, and I still think it meets WP:GNG. It is a Nigerian film and the Nigerian film industry is in a much less advanced position than that in the US, UK or India, so I would not expect there to be such extensive coverage of the film in the media. It still remains an important feature film in Nigeria with a prequel and a sequel. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth I've struck your keep, you should reconsider editing it to say comment as you cannot vote twice and you've already done so above. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have changed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: It is flawed to think that because the film is a Nigerian film, one shouldn't expect there to be extensive coverage. Nigerian movies such as Black November, The Figurine, Phone Swap, and October 1 have gained extensive coverage in the media. Keep in mind that Black November and Phone Swap were released in 2012, the same year that Okon Goes to School was released. If OGTS was a popular film, it should have been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems the people voting for keep are stating baseless reasons outside Wikipedia's notability guideline. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwa2Chainz need i remind you to stay as civil as can be, "seems the people voting for keep are stating baseless reasons outside Wikipedia's notability guideline" is a tad bit disrespectful and rude, the use of 'baseless' was uncalled for, People who !voted! Keep citied at least one guideline hence their reasons were not 'baseless'. We must not make such rude or disrespectful statements as per WP:UNCIVIL states. furthermore your statement is incorrect as this is no voting process where persons with highest number wins or emerges victorious. do take note Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 07 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe Okon Goes to School passes notability requirements. As a Nigerian and a member of the rather small Nigerian movie community, I fully understand the difficulty of establishing notability to current Wikipedia standards. Much of this falls under systemic bias, something that affects Okon Goes to School; as a Nigerian-movie notable in Nigeria on an American website (Wikipedia). My Personal and professional opinion if you ask me is, the movie has gained full coverage in Nigeria and there would be very few Nigerians who haven't heard of the movie.

1. I believe Okon Goes to School easily passes WP:MOVIE . The movie has been screened within Nigeria and other countries of Africa like Ghana, Benin Republic etc.

This might not be convincing enough but its worth a try. Zazzysa (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cwmhiraeth.Adequate indicia of notability in national press of the home nation, not all of which is going to be easily accessible on the internet. Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 8 April 2017 (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. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 16:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Zohar

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

Delete - Meets criteria for deletion via notable for only one event. Reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a single event, the person is to remain, and likely remain, a low-profile individual, and the event for which there is coverage is not significant.

Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no visible evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's attracted mentions for other portraits, and was covered widely in the press when he created a second portrait of Princess Diana, imagining her as she would be at 52. This was the subject of one of the cited sources, but the sources weren't being used fully. I was able to add some biographical information as well as a couple of other portraits (but I removed the Middle Temple group portrait since I couldn't find an independent source for it). There is probably additional press coverage of his career offline; I also didn't use a Daily Mail article (here) or an Indonesian source dependent on the Daily Mail (here) both arising from the second Princess Diana portrait. With press coverage on two separate occasions plus several other works noted in reliable sources, I believe he squeaks by. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - 'Probably additional coverage offline', is the same thing as no coverage at all. As far as I can discern, there is nothing notable about the artist and their works at all. The vast majority of the coverage in the press is related to the celebrity of Diana herself, not the artist. In addition, this coverage is only related to a single event. Even the more recent articles are just in reference to the original event in the 1990's when Zohar painted the portrait of Diana. The only new source added to the article is that Zohar had a student, something which in itself is not very notable for an artist, and that he has painted other portraits, none of which (the portraits) have any sort of notoriety. In addition, there's nothing to suggest that the artist's second portrait of Diana was, 'widely', covered in the press. Although, I suppose this depends on ones definition of widely. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to point out that equating the possibility of offline coverage with no coverage at all is simply wrong. We are on the internet, but we accept offline sources. Moreover, The Times is now completely paywalled, and other UK newspapers are hard for me to access in search (I used to have a subscription to British Newspapers Archive through the Wikipedia Library but didn't renew it because it never seemed to have anything, even articles I'd seen in hard copy in the past) - so there may be online sources that someone else has access to. I presume you performed a WP:BEFORE search? If so, surely you noted that there are two portraits of Princess Diana? That was not reflected in the article, and yes, I would call the coverage of the second one wide - I added a Spanish newspaper, and notice above that I didn't add the Daily Mail or the Indonesian (!) website based on its report, since we no longer accept it as a citable source. Again, I'm sure there were other press reports on that, and far more than the one on the first portrait. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do agree that equating the possibility of coverage to no coverage existing is not correct. A more fair assessment is that 'might be coverage' is not valuable when considering notoriety, since in fact there might also not be coverage. It's an empty statement and actual citations of the offline coverage are what is valuable. In terms of wide coverage, I would not consider one Spanish newspaer and the Daily Mail wide coverage (you mentioned yourself the Indonesian article is just a reference to the Daily Mall resource), but, as I mentioned earlier, I am not sure who is to decide what wide coverage is. In addition, the reason for the majority of this press is not the artist, but the subject, Princess Diana. It seems more appropriate for a subject like this to be a sub-section under Princess Diana regarding portraits of her. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article seems to have only made it onto Wikipedia due to creation by subjects son. Not sure if this matters, but, it would imply some bias. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)

Comment in response. That's assuming bad faith; I think you have a stronger argument for deletion if you stick to the notability point you made in your nomination. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response. The mention of the source of the Author of the article is related to the notability point, not another argument. That is to say, I think it is something to consider when determining if the subject should have an article on Wikipedia. The fact that the Diana portrait had existed for quite some time before the article was created by a relative might lend credence to the idea of the artist themselves not being notable, as one might imagine they would have had an article created by an independent source who was aware of their notoriety. This is of course not necessarily true, and the subject could have been notable, and no one saw it fit to make an article for them. It would be in bad faith to assume that it was only created because of the relation, but I think it would also be short sighted to not consider the source of the creation of the article. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Artist made a nice painting of Princess Diana, but does not seem to have any other coverage, museum shows, monographs,in-depth scholarly articles, or museum collections. To my way of thinking having a couple news releases is not enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2017 (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 one "keep" is not based on reliable sources and must be given less weight. Sandstein 08:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rankselect

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

Does not appear to be a notable algorithm: All I could are false positives, passing mentions, or tutorials. Not much about Rankselect itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 16 hits for "rankselect" in Google scholar but I don't see a lot of evidence that any of them are using it in this sense. And the one (primary) source for the article has been cited 48 times in Google scholar, ok but not great for a paper from 1983, but most of the citations look like people discussing distributed selection, or describing different algorithms for distributed selection, rather than significant coverage of this particular algorithm. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be well used in Haskell, so err on the side of keeping. :-) --Oskinet (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:24, 5 April 2017 (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Jiang Jun

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

I'm not convinced of the notability of this topic. The few present references are very uncredible (i.e. blog and two dead sites with zero authority). A cursory search through google books yields no results. Cold Season (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:19, 5 April 2017 (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Peyton

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

Fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. All references to this appear to be limited to plot summary. A redirect to the list of the series' characters would also be appropriate, but just wanted to make sure through here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2017 (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 Fuel tank. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ship in a Bottle fuel tank

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of this subject independently. This subject is also included in the Ford GT article under Performance_and_engineering section which I think is sufficient rather than a stub about it. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 01:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issues with deleting if if someone wants to include the description of the technique within the Ford GT article - I just don't think it belongs there since other vehicles use the concept. Perhaps someone would be interested in finding out more and expanding the article rather than just removing the information that is there now? Chalky (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Ford GT, if the lurkers there fell it can be added, maybe as a one liner. Fails the GNG, which is a little strange, I wouldn't think a part like this would be required to pass notability. L3X1 (distant write) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with fuel tank as a subsection of "Automotive fuel tanks". Keep the redirect. Thincat (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with fuel tank as above. That is the logical place to mention this since it is not tied to just the Ford GT. Keep the redirect. MB 03:21, 22 April 2017 (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 Dubstar. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hillier

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It lacks any inline citations and none of the links included in references help establish any notability, as one link is broken, the second does not have any in depth coverage and the third points to a Wikipedia page. The BLP has been tagged as needing citations since 2011. The text is full of inline external links that I will remove. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This and this are a pretty impressive list of credits. The problem is that producers tend to keep themselves in the background and not do too much press. At a very last this should be a redirect to Dubstar. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, see how much can be sourced, and if it isn't much, merge/redirect it to Dubstar. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should not be a keep at all, the reason this guy's credits look so impressive is because they've had Steve Hellier (different spelling from the band Death in Vegas https://www.discogs.com/artist/67724-Steve-Hellier) included with them. He has worked with Saint Etienne etc. whereas this guy is the one that used to play the keyboard in Dubstar. That band's entry if sufficient for this. Plus the self-referenced advertising that was removed tells us who created the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.137.102 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I can't find any sources that say Hellier is the one who did that work. Indeed, Hellier appears to have no credits at all at Allmusic, whereas his Discogs one contains mainly his Death In Vegas stuff. I can't see that the two have been confused. Also, Hillier was clearly not just "the one that used to play the keyboard in Dubstar", as the list of credits that are sourced will tell you. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can't find any sources that say Hellier is the one who did that work either and also can't see that the two have been confused, or that there has been any attempt to confuse the two. 82.132.219.70 08:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.70 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discogs credits are not clear at all, reflecting the fact they are, like wikipedia, crowd sourced: Note the remixer section here: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/5b32946a-4c08-4a75-b1b1-60700470671f/relationships http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/death-in-vegas/credits/ I'd have to post a photo of the credits I suppose but: http://www.pmachinery.com/modules/news/index.php?start=1560&storytopic=1 references it. I strongly disagree that the referenced credits are not mixed as referenced by the Death in Vegas claim on here: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/steve-hillier-mn0000044550/credits ... and looking at the wikipedia article, I strongly agree with the Roger 8 Roger revision of 22 November removing the self-referenced advertising about: "Outside of his music career, Hillier is also a founding director of Man Bites Dog, the most award winning B2B PR company in the UK [44]" which is obviously self-referencing and posted by the subject of the page himself... Strong delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.137.102 (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dubstar. Although he has credits, and is a writer/journalist (hence some of the hits for his name) and teacher/lecturer, as well as performing with Dubstar, I don't see evidence of in-depth third-party coverage of Hillier in his own right which would be needed to establish notability. Just being in a successful band isn't enough to be independently notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and let the mention on the Dubstar page cope with the merging. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a parallel data structure for discogs or allmusic. If he'd been in more than one band I think this would be justified. It's the equivalent of the guy who did the accounts on a few movies having his own Wikipedia entry, a note on the band page is sufficient. There is no place for other business interests, no matter how "award winning" they are from the edits... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.84.62.201 (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It seems that this page hasn't been updated in a while, it's notoriously difficult to source citations for producer's work and even harder for songwriters. But doing a quick Google search it's clear Hillier has been involved in more than is stated here. Go with the deletion of advertising which was bizarre and update to include references to the other work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.184.14 (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dubstar per above L3X1 (distant write) 14:53, 10 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador 2017 Social Media Response

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

An unsourced personal essay. Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced WP:OR Neiltonks (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe don't use English-language tweets for a Spanish-speaking country to make your point about social media influence in an election. Basically a large WP:GALLERY violation weighing everything down on a WP:OR paragraph. Nate • (chatter) 14:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced personal opinions. SL93 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic original research that fails WP:NPOV. AusLondonder (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanlal Special

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

Non notable magazine about a Malayalam actor. The magazine's claim to fame according to the creator of the page is in being the first magazine to report about a shelved mega budget movie. Fails WP:GNG and all the sources mentioned are useless as well. Jupitus Smart 09:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any significant reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMAG Spiderone 09:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2017 (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Please note that IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source. Kurykh (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madhav Wagle

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

A search of sources other than the one listed in the article (IMDB) finds nothing that broadly establishes subject's notability. DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wagle does have an IMDb article [45], which is somewhat rare for Nepal's emerging film industry. IMDb lists seven producer credits. Shouldn't this be sufficient? LADave (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King works related to The Dark Tower series

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

This appears to be original research, and is certainly an attractive nuisance for original research. It is perfect content for http://stephenking.com/darktower/connections/ but not for Wikipedia, which requires coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is nothing but a large list of OR and trivia. The only sources that really exist that talk about this idea at all are the actual King books themselves, fansites, and the official King website. I'm not really finding any reliable sources that talk about the topic, nor even much that talks about any of the individual entries in the list. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KIPS Schools

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

These pages are not notable as they don't have well-source links. As the creator of the page I vote to delete. GreenCricket (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe change it to a redirect to Knowledge Inn Preparatory School. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep in mind that the AFD covers several pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:21, 5 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Yeghyayan

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obscure player with brief career. Fails NHOCKEY going away (while he played on his national team, it was far below the level of NHOCKEY notability), no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NHOCKEY #6. Only top tier IIHF teams confer notability, Armenia is Tier 3. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:35, 6 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Day With SpongeBob SquarePants: The Movie

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

The article is not remotely notable. Koala15 (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fan garbage about a fan film designed on purpose to hog search results from authorized media and which may not actually exist. Let's combine the connected Reagal Films in this for the same reasons (even if those films do exist, the article is sourced nearly by only Amazon search results and they only make 'rip and read' bio content which basically is Wikipedia articles in video form). Nate • (chatter) 14:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, Delete - It's been covered thrice by Gawker ([46], [47], [48]) and once by The Atlantic ([49]), but the Atlantic story doesn't really mean jack because it's just a copy/paste of Gawker. But pretty much everything is about how the movie doesn't exist, may have never existed, and may at some point exist if funding and motivation ever materialize. Fails WP:NOTMEME (which really needs to be written by someone), and besides, fails WP:NFF as a movie that isn't. TimothyJosephWood 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 15:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF. Even if we knew for sure the film was actually made, it would fail Wikipedia:NFILM --The Wrong Tea (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2017 (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. There is consensus that this is, one way or another, a mistake--and it is not good to keep mistakes in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus

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

This name first came to my attention some months ago when I was working on List of Roman Consuls: none of my sources could confirm this person's existence. Despite a search on Google, I have been unable to find any reliable source that mentions him. The only original source which appears to even mention this person is a genealogical website which appears to be dodgy to me. In response to a query I left on the talk page last November, Mikythos checked the two sources cited in the article, & neither mention Vestinus. I'm guessing that the original editor took the information from a website (perhaps the one I mention) & directly cited the sources provided there without checking them first. A good-faith article creation. However, at best this person is a phantom & at worst an inadvertent hoax. (P.S. I checked, & none of the criteria for Speedy Deletion appear to apply in this case.) llywrch (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the cited sources don't support the claims, the article is unsourced with the likely supposition of a hoax. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Titus Sextius Lateranus (consul 154). Seems to be a mix of that individual (the long version of Titus Sextius Lateranus' name described on that page and in Mennen includes "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus"), and his father. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay, now I can see where that name came from originally: someone with a hazy grasp of polyonomous names (which was a typical practice in the 2nd century AD Roman Empire; T. Sexius Lateranus' full name is an example of that) assumed L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus was the father of the consul of 154, made up the rest of the material, & put it up on the Internet somewhere where it was found & used in the Wikipedia article. Just one more example why I've become more conservative about accepting information I find -- even from experts. -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to T. Sextius Lateranus. It could be interpreted as a mistake for the consul, but polyonymous Roman nomenclatures tended to accumulate by adding the names of maternal ancestors, so there probably was a grandfather or great-grandfather with this name. A couple of other individuals with the combination "Volusius Torquatus" show up in the EDCS database. Whether there'll ever be any direct evidence of this particular person other than the survival of his name in the consul's nomenclature is uncertain, but not impossible. P Aculeius (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to 'delete' because info from the Internet sounds like hoax to me. A few years ago, I came across a music article about an orchestral interpretation of the entire Bee Gees catalog. I don't know the Bee Gees, but I know music and the 'nomenclature' it was using told me straight-away it was a hoax, which it was. But it was hard to explain it to others until an admin understood what I was saying. The source came from the "internet." If you're sure, I'm happy for a keep, but it sounds dodgy to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a hoax; Smmurphy and Llywrch have already identified the original source of the name. There was a consul whose full (known) nomenclature was either Titus Sextius Lateranus Marcus Vibius (probably Ovellius or Quietus) Secundus Lucius Vol [usius Torquatus?] Vestinus. Based on what we know of Roman nomenclature of this period, it's likely that his maternal ancestors included men named Marcus Vibius Ovellius (or Quietus) Secundus and Lucius Volusius Torquatus (with or without Vestinus). However, we can't be sure which if either was his maternal grandfather, or if one of them was his great-grandfather on his maternal grandmother's side or his paternal grandmother's side. It would have depended largely on which was more illustrious. And while we know of men with similar names, we don't know at this point if they were his ancestors or collateral relatives such as uncles or cousins. So an article about one of them based solely on the appearance of the name in the consul Sextius' nomenclature seems unjustified, although at some point there may be sufficient information to warrant such an article, whether or not the person referred to can be clearly identified in terms of relationship to Sextius.

Such an article could be created and moved over the redirect, or created out of the redirect, if we turn the current one into a redirect; but if we simply delete the page, then someone running across the name as a fragment of Sextius' nomenclature might not find him. Which is why a redirect to Sextius is probably a better idea than deleting the article, until such point as the name warrants an article of its own. In other words, it's not a hoax; it's someone with a tenuous grasp of Roman nomenclature and notability inferring without evidence that some maternal ancestor, about whom we know nothing but his name, was the consul's father, and that knowing his name is sufficient reason for him to have his own article, which really isn't the case. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am assuming this article to be a mistake rather than a hoax. If so, there is confusion. The solution thus needs to be a limited merge that will explain why there is a redirect to a name that appears to be unconnected. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I learned awhile ago to never !vote merge/redirect unless that was a sure outcome because not only would it leave the article in place waiting on a second process to occur, it fails to establish that the community wants to remove the content as-is. !Voting delete establishes firm community consensus, removes the possibility of a redirect getting hijacked (which is popular as of late), and provides for WP:G4 in the future. If there was content here worth saving, editors can move it over to other applicable articles now before this concludes. Anyone supporting merge/redirect is really !voting "keep", which is probably not their intent. I'm not a classical era historian so I don't have much faith that these two are the same person, anyway. That assertion might be true but I have little faith in leaving a redirect. As there is no deadline, there's no need to "save" content. Let someone more responsible add this content years in the future and do so properly. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rechecked all of the sources given in this article, to see if there was something that Llywrch or Mikythos missed.

I can't see page 165 of Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian, but from pages 164 and 166 he seems to be discussing persons whom Domitian raised to the consulship during his reign, which does not suggest that it mentions a consul from AD 112, as this article asserts (Domitian died in 96). The index contains listings for one Lucius Volusius Saturninus, consul in 87, and one Quintus Volusius Saturninus, consul in 192. Lucius is the one mentioned on page 165, and I cannot rule out the possibility that it mentions a son, but there is no "Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" in the index, and for reasons to follow I do not think it states that such a son was consul in 112.

Jörg Rüpke's Fasti Sacerdotum, cited to p. 1288 (one of four hits for "Volusius"; the other three don't look relevant), is a discussion of T. Sextius T. f. Lateranus M. Vibius Ovellius . . . Secundus L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus, consul in 154. Note 4 says that he was the son of T. Sextius Africanus, consul in 112; not of L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus.

PIR, vol. III, p. 487 (V 666), is an entry for (L.) Volusius Torquatus, son of the consul Lucius of AD 87. It indicates that he apparently married his cousin, Licinia Cornelia M. f. Volusia Torquata. The entry says nothing about him being consul in 112, and it doesn't assign him the cognomen Vestinus.

Not cited is E. Mary Smallwood's Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, which gives fasti for the reign of Trajan and indicates that we seem to have a complete list of consuls for 112; this list includes T. Sextius Lateranus but not L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus. I do not see that or any similar name anywhere in her lists, either as a dated or undated consul.

Lastly, I mention that the entire article was written and documented by Anriz, whose chief interest in Roman history seems to have been illustrating Descent from antiquity, and who has in many other articles attempted to tie together various persons from Roman history whose connection seems at best uncertain.

So, in all this article appears to be mostly about a real person, Lucius Volusius Torquatus, although I can find nothing to suggest that he was surnamed Vestinus. The only logical source for that name is Rüpke, whose entry is not about the same person. That seems to be the only source for a supposed consulship in 112, as well. It seems that Anriz concluded that the Titus Sextius Lateranus who was consul in 154 was the son, not of T. Sextius Lateranus, consul in 112, but of an L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus, perhaps misunderstanding Sextius' nomenclature, and that this "Vestinus" must have been the consul of 112.

It's true that in some cases the last names in a polyonymous Roman nomenclature are the ones inherited from the father, but in this instance reliable sources indicate that the opposite was the case. Lateranus, the consul of 154, was probably descended from a Lucius Volusius Torquatus; and could perhaps be the grandson of the one at PIR, vol. III, p. 487, although in this case Vestinus seems to come from somewhere else. This article creates a phantom consul out of a misinterpretation of Rüpke, IMO.

However, there does seem to have been a Lucius Volusius Torquatus, who was the son of Saturninus, the consul of 87, and who married Licinia Cornelia. I would strike the cognomen Vestinus as it isn't indicated for him in any known source, and any reference to a consulship in 112, since the consul referred to was clearly a different person. Now, as the combination "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" is only known to occur in the name of T. Sextius Lateranus, the consul of 154, I think that this title should redirect there; but the parts of this article that aren't clearly erroneous should be moved to "Lucius Volusius Torquatus", as such a person did exist, and he seems to be the only individual with that name. P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time to sort this out
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@(P Aculeius) "On 13 January 87, C.Calpurnius Piso Crassus Frugi Licinianus (PIR2 C 259) became suffect consul, replacing Domitian and holding the post with another patrician, L.Volusius Saturninus, who may well have been married to Calpurnius’s cousin, Licinia Cornelia." Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian is available online in its entirety. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was also a Lucius Vestinus, warmly mentioned in Claudius Oratio: "Here is this splendid and powerful colony of Vienna [modern Vienne in southern of France]; is it so long since it sent to us senators? From that colony comes Lucius Vestinus, one of the glories of the equestrian order, my personal friend, whom I keep close to myself for the management of my private affairs. Let his sons be suffered---I pray you--- to become priests of the lowest rank, while waiting until, with the lapse of years, they can follow the advancement of their dignity".[50]. He went on to become "praefectus Aegypti" and has a nice article in German WP. His son Marcus Iulius Vestinus Atticus was consul in 65. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some interesting resources (and I look forward to reading the Domitian book), but they don't shed any new light on this discussion. We already know that there was a Lucius Volusius Saturninus who was consul in 87, and that he had a son named Lucius Volusius Torquatus. But we also know that the particular combination "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" appears in only one place: the nomenclature of the consul of 154, whose father Titus Sextius Lateranus was consul in 112. None of the sources cited in the article state that there was a consul in 112 named Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus; none of the traditional sources for identifying consuls name such a person; he is not attested in any historian, any encyclopedia of antiquity, in any treatise, or in any known inscriptions.

Quite simply this is a case of the article's original author conflating different people. He or some unidentified source he used (but did not cite) knew that the consul whose name ended in "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" was the son or grandson of someone who was consul in 112, and that he was named after said consul. But he did not realize that the consul in question was Titus Sextius Lateranus, and not someone named "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus", who as far as can be determined did not exist. The most that we can say is that Lucius Volusius Torquatus (sans Vestinus) was a real person and likely to have been an ancestor, perhaps the maternal grandfather, of the consul of 154, but there is no evidence whatever that he was consul in 112, and no reason to believe that the assertion that he was is anything other than confusion with Titus Sextius Lateranus, who is known to have been both consul in 112 and the father of the consul of 154. This falls in the category of "mistake", assuming good faith on the part of the editor in question; and there isn't any likelihood of new evidence suddenly coming to light on this issue. P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was just wondering where the cognomen Vestinus may come from. Anyways, I just found something else that might be directly relevant: an epigraphic mention of L(ucius) Vol[usius Torquatus?] Vestinus. The inscription, whose original is lost, is analysed by William Seston in this article in French (p.111). His reconstruction differs from the previous one (HD). He hesitates between L. Vol[cacius Torquatus?] and L. Vol[usius Saturninus]. Torquatus and Volusius are just conjectures. There is also a discrepancy between the two versions of the inscription: L in the HD record vs. LUC in Seston. So, probably no Torquatus and no Volusius, possibly no Lucius, Titus Sextius Lateranus is here, but whether Vestinus is one of his cognomina or someone else ain't clear to me. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2017 (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 High School Musical (soundtrack). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical Hits Remixed

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

Fails WP:NALBUM despite entering low on a chart somewhere and definitely fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of charting (which does not automatically make an album notable), this release never received any significant coverage in reliable sources. Offers nothing someone couldn't find on Amazon or, in this case, Walmart.com. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge small section to High School Musical (soundtrack) Didn't even chart and exclusive to one store. Outside the most obsessive HSM fans, remix albums like this usually don't do much besides completing CD collections or being literal coasters once they grow out of their multiple-viewings stage. Nate • (chatter) 01:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to High School Musical (soundtrack), which has no mention of this. This will improve the merge target article by making it more complete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Selective merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a sentence to both High School Musical (soundtrack) and High School Musical 2 (soundtrack)), since it's a mix of the two, but target the future redirect at the first article because of the name. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Deep Down

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I said in my endorsement of the original prod (which was contested and removed), not only are there no WP:BAND criteria met, but WP:CORP (which applies to any organization including bands) requires national or at least regional coverage, not merely local coverage, which is all this band has. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, bands don't have to pass WP:CORP in addition to passing WP:BAND. Yes, a band should have wider coverage not limited to a single city, but BAND does include "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" as a potential notability claim that can be satisfied by a particularly strong volume of purely local coverage. NMUSIC already requires the claim to be supported by media coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG, so there's no reason to add secondary hurdles that a band also has to clear supplementary SNGs in addition to NMUSIC. Furthermore, a solo artist would not have to clear CORP in addition to NMUSIC — and the notability standards for bands cannot be tighter than they are for solo artists. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I stated in my PROD I do not believe that the article meets WP:BAND, it might pass notability eventually but it is very much WP:TOOSOON. Mifter (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't claim anything at all that would pass WP:NMUSIC, and the volume of sourcing shown is neither substantive enough to clear WP:GNG nor extending beyond a single event of purely local significance. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watzke

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

Article about a family, I prodded it few weeks ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline". Deprodded by creator with a promise "removed deletion notice - will fix", no improvement since. This is a poorly referenced mess on a topic of unclear notability suited for WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Then I can replace it with a surname list of four+ entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage for this surname. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiaree

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

A search for significant coverage in reliable sources mainly resulted in passing mentions or artist profiles. I did find two sources about the artist, but both are from non-independent sources (one was from Big Sean's foundation; the artist had opened for one of his concerts, while the other source is a possibly non-reliable blog). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTOBIO and nowhere near meeting WP:MUSICBIO. The only sources I found were self-published social media. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails GNG per a Google News search. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 06:40, 13 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leela Beattie

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

Non-notable tennis player. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. No significant wins, no significant winnings. PROD removed without comment or significant improvement Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS and certainly does not meet WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom and Triptothecottage. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (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 Forced disappearance#Argentina. The redirect may be contested at suitable venues (WP:RFD) if people are so inclined Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Estela Márquez Dreyer

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "I saw sources in web search". No sign they pass WP:GNG. Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to some page on Argentinian history. No notability of itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, sad but not notable; per WP:Memorial. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider possible redirect targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate she is different than hundreds of other descamisados, and no justification to have articles on all of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2017 (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. You don't bring an article to AfD because you are in dispute with another editor. Fenix down (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club Universidad Nacional Reserves and Academy

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

No indication of independent notability, should be a redirect, but an editor continues to attempt to establish the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 5 April 2017 (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. You don't bring an article to AfD because you are in dispute with an editor over whether it should be a redirect. Fenix down (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club Tijuana Reserves and Academy

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

No indication of independent notability, should be a redirect, but an editor continues to attempt to establish the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 5 April 2017 (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 Stickman Studios. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CerebralFix

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

In 2012 an article by this name was sent to AfD, the result of which was "keep". After the article was keep, the page was moved to Stickman Studios, which apparently was the correct name of the company. An editor is insistent on recreating this article. Either this article needs to be redirected to Stickman, or, if this is to a different company with the same name, this other company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be a re-direct not a new article. Anything of note should be included in the Stickman article. NealeFamily (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As above. I note that CerebralFix has an indef block, and suspect DonnyNZ is a sock. Ditto Lamenam3. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor writing up the CerebralFix wiki as part of my project. Will be putting in significant changes over the next few days. New to editing Wikis so sorry for any poor formatting. Lamenam3 (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:26, 12 April 2017 (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 Range voting. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Score Runoff Voting

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

A search did find some hits in reliable sources, but at best these were passing mentions or sites that promote the method. The only independent significant coverage I could find appears to be from a site that advocates electoral reform, so I'm not sure how independent or reliable that source is. It's possible this could be merged to either Ranked voting system or Instant-runoff voting, but as it stands, it seems to be WP:TOOSOON at best for this to have its own article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you categorize the Center for Election Science VSE article and the Sightline article as either "passing mentions or sites that promote the method"? CES is a longstanding reference source for a number of voting-related articles on Wikipedia. CES has done no promotion of the Score Runoff Voting method, rather a researcher there statistically analyzed many voting methods and found Score Runoff Voting to perform best on the measures of the simulation amongst all the voting methods analyzed. Likewise, the reference Sightline article is hardly a "passing mention" - that article fully describes the function of the method such that no original research is needed to extract the content and discusses strategic voting implications under the system. That's three independent sources that meet GNG criteria. Keep. Nardopolo (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A trivial variation of range voting with no significant independent reliably-published sourcing (all we have is web sites of dubious significance and reliability), does not pass WP:GNG. The sightline piece in particular is a pamphlet from a partisan group, not a scholarly publication, mentions a different variation (with reweighting), and does so only trivially as a short bullet in a long bulleted list of possibilities. I see no reason to change my WP:TOOSOON opinion from last time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response:. David, you might want to take a closer look. The three independent sources are IVN (~500,000 subscribers on social media), the Center for Election Science, creators of the VSE metric and significant contributors to voting science, and Sightline. Sightline is a research think tank that's been around for more than two decades -- whether or not their articles are "scholarly" may be a matter of debate (the author of that paper has like 10 pages of links to research writings on the site), but it doesn't need to be a "scholarly publication" to meet GNG. And your cursory examination of that piece didn't manage to find the actual definition and description of Score Runoff Voting, nor its strategic implications. While you assert SRV is a "trivial variation" of range voting, it has significant performance differences, as evidenced by the CES VSE study. How many more independent sources are needed beyond three before you'll let go of the WP:TOOSOON claim? Nardopolo (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google scholar search for "score runoff voting" returned "Your search - "Score Runoff Voting" - did not match any articles". More than zero would be a start. For this sort of subject I would like to see actual scholarship, not just web page and think tank advocacy. For why think tank product cannot be considered reliable, see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#massive deletions — too main think tanks say what they are paid to say rather than neutrally seeking the truth. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like we both agree that this topic deserves more scholarly research, however, you are incorrect in equating "scolarly sources" with "independent sources". This reform comes from public interest campaigns and active reform, rather than an ivory tower approach. The ivory tower is not required for WP:GNG, and your example about think tanks hardly establishes the notion that all think tanks are unreliable independent sources, rather that a paid editor was spamming links to a particular set of partisan viewpoints. You have also not adjusted or addressed your misstatements above.Nardopolo (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither IVN (the Independent Voter Network) nor the Sightline Institute are notable enough for their own pages on Wikipedia, so that goes against their notability. Plus the Sightline report is a general memo on voting systems reform, contains a relatively brief (two paragraphs) mention, and opens with "This memo is an articulation of Sightline’s internal strategy for voting systems reform. It is not a thoroughly vetted and reviewed report or article like most of our publications." I agree it is WP:TOOSOON; a brief description under Instant-runoff voting#Similar methods might be appropriate. It also already has a brief mention under Range voting#Advocacy, imho that's sufficient. Jsilter (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DavidEppstein. Should be briefly covered at Range voting; no need for a separate article. Also concerned by the nature of the account that created (and recreated) this article. Number 57 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. It has a passing mention at the range voting page already, which seems appropriate given its few passing mentions and zero academic coverage. A paragraph under Instant-runoff voting#Similar methods might also be appropriate.Jsilter (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Range voting — whether or not it's notable as its own topic, I think it's such a short article on such a similar topic to range voting that it would be better off as a section in that article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:42, 12 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture This (New Zealand band)

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

Despite an extensive search, I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Given the band's age, it's possible that offline coverage exists out there, but I have been unable to find any sign of them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention on Discogs, nor Spotify. scope_creep (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article basically says they played in pubs and clubs, and doesn't even try to assert any notability in terms of any releases, charting, media coverage.... Jellyman (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in both New Zealand and Australian print media of the 1980s but these appear to be offline. Two such sources are now in the article and I have been unable to find any online version(s) for easier verification. The subject toured both New Zealand and Australia, they supported a gig by NZ band, DD Smash.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Unfortunately nothing in the article that indicates we can assume nobility as per WP:MUSIC. So it comes down to GNG, and I could find no appropriate sources online, but we have two offline sources listed in the article -- do these meet GNG though? I would have thought that if the band was covered in Rolling Stone Australia maybe I'd find something online about them, but no luck. -- Shudde ^talk 11:58, 10 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SatireV

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

Not notable. Seems to be virtually unknown outside of Harvard: All the sources in the article are from Harvard except for a Boston Globe article used to verify a snowfall, and Google turns up no suitable coverage. Fails WP:GNG Largoplazo (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable outside Harvard. SL93 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything useful when searching books, newspapers and news. AusLondonder (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2017 (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Sarah Dean

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

Fails WP:GNG and Wp:CREATIVE the sources are as follows, 1 is Imdb, 1 is a meet the team which just links to her own website, 4 do not mention her aussietheatre, , theaureview, smh, roundhouse, 3 are associated pages for one of her plays, playdead, melbourneshakespeare, 1 is a passing mention of her winning a prize from the LOST theatre company (a 180 seat London fringe theatre), the only page that might support notability is an interview with her in the Canberra times but it is about the play Ghost Stories (play) for which she was the co-director. This looks rather like a vanity piece. A search on the web turned up nothing in-depth. Domdeparis (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable, secondary sources. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. After searching "Julia Quinn" I understand why she changed her name, I had no idea there would be so many Julias Quinn. Keywords didn't help. I did find 2 articles in the Canberra Times about a play she directed, Ghost Stories, I added them to the article. the first was a pre-opening feature story. The second was a review, with a complimentary sentence about her work as director. It's just not enough to support an article. Feel free to ping me if anyone manages to source it adequately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ if WP:CREATIVE is the standard, which is a very high bar, then she does not meet it. Go ahead and DELETE if you must. These two sources about two different productions look sufficient to me. ^[1]^[2]^[3]

--David Tornheim (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I said in my nomination the first helps a little but is a local newspaper promotional interview about the play and not the subject and the second does not mention the subject at all. they could be used as sources in an article about this production of the play but not to support the notability of the subject. And BTW I think they are about the same product of Ghost Stories and not 2 different ones; And please don't forget that just because a production might have received in-depth coverage this does not make the director notable as notability is not inherited. Domdeparis (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

theaureview.com does not appear to be a reliable and may not be a secondary source, also, it doesn't mention her by name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^Sorry. I put in the wrong ref. I struck out the one that didn't include her name and replaced it with the one I had mean to include this.--David Tornheim (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how local the magazines are. There is enough production quality in both that they give the appearance of being substantial. I am not sure what our standard is for when a magazine or newspaper is considered too local or regional to count. If either of you can cite to it, I might change my mind. I doubt anyone would refer to the U.S. as "regional". I saw an article on a French commedian and wonder if that is "local". I have seen articles based solely on non-English sources, so the definition of regional is unclear to me. I might bring this question to a noticeboard if there is no straightforward answer. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful source towards WP:N no mattter how important a publication it is because all it does is to list her as the director. What we need are articles that discuss her work and career in some depth, full profile articles are best, but at the very least, secondary, WP:RSes that detail her career and discuss her accomplishments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Have found additional source which I may feel qualifies as notary as is a national printed/digital magazine. Article is not solely about here but she is clearly mentioned. http://scenestr.com.au/arts/5-lines-shakespeare-worthy-tinder-lines Laura Wade (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Also found this mention in The West Australian which I believe is Western Australia's largest print publication. My feeling is that she is clearly of enough notoriety from a variety of sources to be mentioned however I am new to Wikipedia. Source seem to be from a variety of places across the country and for various projects not just local work. https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/arts-reviews/left-in-the-dark-by-creepy-shows-inevitable-twist-ng-ya-118875?r=1 Laura Wade (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are articles that discuss her work and career in some depth, full profile articles are best I'm not convinced all of that is required under WP:NACTOR. If you can find some policy that says something like that, I'd like to see it. For the record, I am an inclusionist, and I generally err on the side of including if there is uncertainty. I can't say for certain that she meets the standard nor can I say she fails it either. She does have, at least, those two article that could be WP:RS and are about two different works, each of which might be notable. She's clearly not just some small town director with a couple of blurbs in the the town paper by her friends raving about how great she is. The real problem is I don't know the circulation of the RS I suggested. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I checked the circulation of the Canberra Times which I may have wrongly called a local newspaper but and its weekday print is 16k copies which is not a lot I think. I don't know if this is important or not. Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page only mentions that she acted before becoming a director in the lede and infobox it states that she is a director and writer there are no mentions in the article of her notability as an actor...I don't see how you can quote NACTOR ...and the sources that you provide concern her work as a director...so the notability criteria to quote is WP:CREATIVE. I'm happy for you that you are an inclusionist but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable content. If I was 100% sure that she was not notable enough I would have made a CSD or a PROD but this is a debatable case so we're looking for convincing arguments and not just "I'm not really sure so let's keep it anyway" I think. Domdeparis (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. I didn't consider her an actor, but a director, and the term didn't come up in a search and I mistakenly thought WP:NACTOR was closest. I may propose adding director to the WP:CREATIVE category. That's indeed a very high bar and I agree she does not meet it. I am a bit surprised is that high, especially when compared to WP:NSPORT and the plethora of articles we have on businesses that are making ordinary products that could never qualify under such a standard. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I searched Proquest; and I and others have searched GNews and HighBeam, as well as JSTOR and books. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if anyone finds in-depth and/or substanstive secondary WP:RSS. But it looks clear that is either a nonnotable career or, more likely, WP:TOOSOON. There should be no prejudice against re-creating the article in a few years if her work someday verifiably attracts significant attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominators criteria and because of lack of reliable, secondary sources. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. I believe in a few years time she may be considered for a wiki page if she continues her work and gets more recognised by established professionals and foundations. Tzsagan (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Adeleke

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

Article is a stub, and fails WP:GNG ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like any other stub, this stub is a stub. So what ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see my other point about failing WP:GNG?ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the article and sources I found online, his claim to fame is that he is someone's older brother. I have been able to find good sources for notable Nigerians in the past, and it's easy to understand the online sources because the official language is English. He may be a great big brother, but he does not meet notability guidelines. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Also noting the length of an article is never grounds for deletion at AfD. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per [ping:Jacknstock] Zazzysa (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NMUSIC. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 12 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dollhouse (professional wrestling)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted for not passing WP:GNG, and still does not. Individuals are notable, but the stable is not. Nikki♥311 01:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable for an article, a section in individual articles at most. MPJ-DK 10:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not individually notable.LM2000 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Naqaweh

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

Non-notable businessman. Quite a few tangential references in coverage of his company's failures but no in-depth sourcing. Article relies largely on primary sources and business listings. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - self created (or paid) COIN obviously. I also can't find coverage (beyond a liquidation case). I'm at weak (and not just delete) due to the claim he's residing in Syria - which if actually true (not clear), would make him more noteworthy (in regards to the Syrian regime and civil war) - but need sources for that.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to find multiple articles on him from major business/news outlets and came up empty. The article does cite bloomberg.com mentioning him though. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Knox490: With all due respect, that citation is a company profile link which doesn't even mention this person's name. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2017 (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.

Yung Simmie

The result was No consensus. After being relisted more than twice, the discussion contained a mixed collection of reasons for keeping and deleting the article, whose artist has multiple charting tunes. (non-admin closure) --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards. Billboard charts are deprecated, per WP:BADCHARTS. Sources cited in article are primary sources (interviews) or trivial, paragraph-long mentions in industry or fansite publications. Unable to locate a significant secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yung Simmie covers WP:MUSICBIO No.7, he has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city which is Miami, Florida and also has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources , like Chris Travis and Bones he is notable as well. 32zel (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Strike comments from confirmed sock.[reply]
— 32zel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Really important artist in Miami Florida and also in hip hop underground scene. Also has a lot of coverage of reliable sources. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] also has appeared in notable artist projects such as Denzel Curry, Spaceghostpurrp and Suicideboys Kakashi123456789 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Strike comments from confirmed sock.[reply]
— Kakashi123456789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: Since your assuming and acussing me of only creating this account to save this article You should take a little look here WP:DNB, also you should read this Who not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines) , pretty much your tagging us to intentionally take away the relevance of my and :@32zel: "keep" requests. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also i would like to ask what is that "single-purpose" your acussing my account of being part of?Kakashi123456789 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing any of those things. You have a total of 64 edits, starting March 2, 2017. At a glance, they all look to be in the area of very similar music. That's a SPA from my perspective.

The issue here on this page is to determine whether or not the Yung Simmie article should be deleted. You believe there are reasons for a "strong keep", but haven't offered anything that remotely supports such a position. I've offered basic approaches to solving this. They've been ignored by everyone arguing "keep". As a result, I've decided the article would be better deleted, but offered yet more ways we could resolve this differently. You've responded by taking this as a personal attack. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first and third source listed are interviews, which are primary sources. The second article is a short bio and a track listing. These sources hardly support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those were only some examples, as you can see in the article there is still many more of reliable sources such as XXL Magazine, Complex, The Source ^[4]^[5]^[6], the artist is notable and certainly deserves a wikipedia article.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth is another interview. The fifth is a short profile that might, with other similar or better sources, together demonstrate substantial coverage. The sixth is an announcement from three years back.

Basically, there's one source here that might demonstrate notability if there were more like it. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yung simmie has shown multiple news coverage for a considerable time , here evidence of past and present articles, still there is more articles that i could present but i think this is enough to show the artists notability .^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19] Kakashi123456789 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at each sources cited and it is a cacophony of primary source interviews, one sentence-long intros to a video, and vacuous paragraph-long bios. A more obvious example of WP:E=N and WP:SOUNDCLOUDBAND would be difficult to find, but consensus seems to have spoken. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What @Magnolia677: is assuming isnt correct, the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Bregoli brings back 150,000 more articles on Google. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you trying to troll or something? Please dont try to change the sentence and try to keep the mature ambient that the discussion once had until you brought up your joke. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kakashi123456789, you wrote "the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE." If Wikipedia articles were based on notability "over the years", whatever that means, the "cash me outside" girl would also have an article, but it was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Bregoli (personality)), just as this one should be. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note The discussion isnt about comparing how much existing articles a certain artist or personality has. 32zel (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT First of all the comparison is out of place since Yung simmie and Bregoli dont have nothing in comon.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Just to let you know Magnolia677 that you wanted the Danielle Bregoli article deleted, because you nominated it. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreeing with other editors based on their presented evidence, although Yung Simmie has no charted songs, he has repeated notable news coverage as shown. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Agreeing with Bloomdoom and 32zel on this. He is notable enough to have an article. LilNumerator (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC) strike comments from confirmed sock.[reply]

Request Rather than spamming this discussion with a long list of poor references, could someone identify sources that are equal of better than the fifth listed below, http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/florida-rappers/ ? If none exist, which seems to be the case, then the article should be stubbed or deleted. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m not seeing anything of significance among the references provided. Most are 1st person, user submitted (such as hotnewhiphop) or trivial. While sources such as Complex, The Source, XXL, can indeed reveal secondary evidence of wikipedia notability, the coverage they have given this subject isn’t. It’s worth noting that in today’s digital media age—where websites are hungry for constant, easy content—any artist with just the smallest amount of effort is going to get the kind of coverage evidenced here: interviews, announcements of releases, inclusions on lists, credits lists, etc. This does not represent true "third party" coverage. Many of these kinds of magazines/websites, in fact, give directions to whom/and how to submit content to get the desired press. The existences of such coverage is just that: existence. Every industry has it’s unique press arm, but that doesn’t mean any thing that gets press is notable. Were that the case then, for example, every realtor in Miami would merit a wikipedia page by pointing to their trade industry profiles, listings, etc. That is precisely why the guidelines for WP:MUSIC specify that meeting criteria may be—not is—indication of notabiity. It’s not automatic without being subjected to the kind of analysis provided here.

Having said that, I am willing to give the editors arguing “keep” a chance to get me to change my ivote. While I’m reasonably well-versed in publishing and music marketing, I’ll admit I know nothing of the Miami underground hip hop scene. Looking over the edit history of these “keep” editors it appears they have a common interest and/or connection to the scene. And although a few of their histories reveal a rare or/no participation in prior AFD discussions (a tell-tale sign of their presence here being the result of possible WP:CANVASING) I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt and hear their arguments why the Miami hip-hop scene (and it’s key proponents) are encyclopedia-worthy. It will certainly need more than what has been shown so far. The only decent reference, as pointed out by user Ronz, is the article in XXL. But if that’s it—just one—then, no, it does not represent significant coverage, and neither is being one-out-of-fifteen people listed in an article enough to merit a stand alone wikipedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

@ShelbyMarion: HotNewHipHop is not a user submitted site, they have their own editors, so I don't know where you got that idea from. Some more sources featuring Yung Simmie here, here and here. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomdoom2, User submit information comes directly from HotNewHipHop itself. Upfront, the very first sentence of their mission statement under the "about" link declares: "HotNewHipHop.com empowers artists by letting them showcase their music to real hip hop fans." Here is the link for how artists can submit their content: http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/heatseekers-update-new-format-to-submit-your-songs-and-videos-news.10321.html? ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources featuring Yung Simmie here here here 32zel (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going through all the subsequent links looking for a single source as I requested, I see that Vibe has given him two paragraphs as one in thirty rappers in Florida:http://www.vibe.com/2016/10/30-florida-rappers-you-need-to-hear/yung-simmie-ig/ I don't think that's enough. If editors want to take the time to go through that list of thirty and identify which ones are already considered notable, that might help. If most of the rappers mentioned in the other source, http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/florida-rappers/ , are notable, please identify them. Please stop spamming links without regard to their quality. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The GNG isn't met, there's nothing more than passing mentions. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please note that User talk:Kakashi123456789 and User talk:32zel have both been blocked for using their accounts abusively. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No other comments after the last 2 relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Billboard's Twitter charts (where the artist reached #8) are deprecated, the subject is listed at #4 on Billboard's Next Big Sound charts.^[51] This, combined with decent profile reviews by sources like Movement Magazine and the subject being "placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." (WP:NMUSIC#7) by channels like BBC,^[52][53][54] make this subject tend towards a Keep rather than a Delete, irrespective of the issue of sock keep !votes above. Lourdes 16:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes (talk) I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the sources given here. Billboard’s Next Big Sound chart is not a significant chart, it merely charts an aggregate of content downloaded on social music share sites such as Pandora, Last.fm, iheart, etc.. While tracking this info may have some value to industry professionals, for Wikipedia purposes it—like all social media aggregates—amounts to nothing when determining a subject’s notability.

Movement Magazine is local coverage of the Jacksonville, Florida music scene, and while perhaps a major third party profile therein might account for something, the example cited here does not appear to be a "decent profile review," rather it is merely an announcement of an upcoming release, the kind of standard trivial coverage that is called out in WP:NMUSIC#1 as precisely what is not an indicator of notability. Look at the link at the bottom of the page that allows one to directly submit news of events or announcements; this type of promotional content is consistent with the the vast majority of coverage this subject has gathered, very little of it representing true, independent, third party coverage.

Finally, the BBC links are not indicative of an artist being in significant rotation as cited in WP:MUSIC#7. You’ve provided archived links to 3 specific shows from the past (From Sep 10, 2012, Jan 24, 2013 and Nov. 3 2013) on the BBC 1XTRA’s Player Radio digital site, a targeted Urban-centic sub-catagory where 37 DJ’s curate playlists based on their personal preferences. For DJ’s to include a track by this artist in their lineup on four occasions over the past 5 years (I found another one from Sep 26, 2014) is a separate debate of notability; it emphatically is not the same as being on rotation on BBC1 (or any of their other main stations).

I still stand by my delete vote registered April 7. I’ve followed the comments here—as I wrote that I would—with a good-faith view to have my mind changed. Although googling his name returns tons of hits, none of them are beyond trivial, self-promotional, social media, or being including among a list. Considering his first proper release is coming later this year (per his social media comments) this is, at best, WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I appreciate and respect your viewpoint on the Billboard charts and BBC links. While various Billboard charts have been deprecated, the Billboard chart I have given is explicitly not deprecated. While I respect your view, unless consensus exists that this chart that I have quoted cannot be used, charting on this chart provides NMUSIC support to the subject. Additionally, my view is the same with BBC. I'll request you to search and find out the listings where BBC provides national playlists. A national radio channel has presenters/DJs who select songs based on their popularity. And the subject being selected by multiple DJs on BBC over a significant time period is evidence of WP:NMUSIC#7 being achieved. Let me reiterate, I appreciate your viewpoints and see them as a logical perspective and interpretation too. Thanks. Lourdes 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. Thanks, Lourdes (talk) . BTW, where are these discussions that determine policy? I’ve asked before but didn’t get much direction. I feel the insight from my background in music marketing can benefit the wikipedia community. IMO, some of the criteria could use more clarity, even hardline definition. Billboard’s Next Big Sound Chart needs assessing. It’s true that it is not among those listed as deprecated, but I couldn’t find it listed among those that are acceptable, either. It may simply be so unimportant that it’s never been given consideration. I find it curious that Billboard Twitter charts have been discounted, but their Next Big Sound Chart—a tracking of online social activity regardless of context—hasn’t. (See: https://help.nextbigsound.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2547277-what-is-next-big-sound ) While I believe social media numbers can, in fact, reveal helpful information, they are susceptible to having their numbers corrupted by those savvy enough to know how to do it. And if this subject—Yung Simmie—has convinced me of anything it’s that he (or someone or an agency working on his behalf) knows all too well how to use the internet as a tool for promotion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, you are right about the promotional part. As SmokeyJoe has mentioned, we can bring this article down to a stub in case the article is kept. Lourdes 02:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Since the first relisting, note that yet another user arguing "keep" has been confirmed as a sock, and their comments have been struck accordingly. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify. There are some sources that look to met the WP:GNG, such as this and this . However, the article has been Wikipedia:Reference bombed with non-reliable sources. It smells of promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Calk Horseshoe Company

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

Subject lacks sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is passing mention in a few books [55][56] and directories[57][58] that prove this company existed, but that's about all we have. At access.newspaperarchive.com there's some brief mentions in old newspapers of an explosion in 1929 that killed 2, a strike that was settled in 1937... looks like a 'run of the mill' mill that was around for a long time. The company holds some patents, but I don't see evidence that they were significant inventions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You have to search under its later name "Diamond Tool." Here's an article about it's significance in the sport of Horsehoe Pitching[59]. There's substantial coverage here[60] which also indicates that the controversy over the company's acquisition was covered in the NY Times. Local coverage here[61], which also suggests that substantial coverage in the local paper exists at the time for expanding the article.--Jahaza (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second two are more evidence that this run-of-the-mill company existed for a long time. The first one is intriguing, but it appears to be a personal website, belonging to Bob Dunn. Who is that? If we had a reliable source to back up the things Dunn has on his website, I think that might count for something. The basic claim is that Diamond was "instrumental" in organizing and promoting horseshoe pitching in the 20s and 30s. If that is accurate, then there ought to be independent newspaper, books or magazines that say that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dunn is the author of the article, which is an archived version of an article printed in the 90's in the official journal of the (US) National Horseshoe Pitching Association. There's a similar article here[62] from Canada's horseshoe pitching association. A reprint of an article from Anvil Magazine here[63], more about Swanstrom and the company (for verifiability if not notability here[64], company was considered important enough to be included in an oral history project here[65], a brand successor to the company still exists[66].--Jahaza (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I'm stumped by these references and don't know what to make of them. Hopefully other editors will have some idea what to say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep. Bob Dunn is an expert, clearly, it seems to me. This 1998 article and others are reliable sources, IMHO. It is a very long con, indeed, if he is playing to hoax Wikipedia! --do ncr am 07:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found the company mentioned by several books (Google Books in the search results). In addition, major/relevant publications mention the company such as India Times and Anvil Magazine.[67][68] The historical history of technology is important because over the long term this often has far greater impact than the "history of great men/women". The historian Ferdinand Braudel in his book Capitalism and the Material Life convincingly points this out. In addition, there is a definite audience for this article given the amount of tinkers/inventors/history buffs, etc. in society. Knox490 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Franchi

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

Non-notable person. This article borders on promoting the subject since there is nothing remarkable or outstanding about this person to meet Wikipedia inclusion criterion. The sources online are passing mentions of the subject and in most of them he appears in lists together with others.. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 01:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Promo from SPA. He does have some coverage (200 google-news hits) - but many are passing quotes, and you'd expect most advertising executives to have some coverage - that's the name of the game.... I don't think it is enough. If the article were rewritten and NPOVed - maybe could be kept.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Franchi is mentioned by Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur, CNBC. Techcrunch, Bloomberg, advertisingweek.com which are all prominent news sources of business/tech information. And these are but a few of the major press/business organizations that are covering him as seen by all the links to stories about him in the major media and major business publications, see: http://ericfranchi.com/press Social media experts are making big differences in terms of business/politics/social movements and he is in the upper eschelon of experts as Business Insider clearly indicates in its rankings of Eric Franchi as far Twitter experts/Instagram experts.[69][70] So his impact on business and possibly politics is substantial. Knox490 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at all 15 sources cited in the article (except for the dead link, but including the two which auto-played videos at me and damnear locked up my browser). None of them is about him, and at least three are by him 1 2 3. The mention of him in at least one is about his tweets 4 ("He is also prone to a tweetstorm and joins in the debates on the big ad-tech and media topics of the day."). This citation is trivial almost beyond belief - it's just of a photograph. There is one generally WP:RS source: the Wall Street Journal. In that citation, the part about him reads in full as follows: "And many still derive significant revenue from selling premium ads like video and custom content directly, said Eric Franchi, co-founder of the digital ad firm Undertone". I got the impression that he's always ready to be quoted if someone phones him up. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:PROMO. Narky Blert (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism on an unremarkable businessman. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2017 (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. Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Brexit on science and technology

Note Current version: Brexit and arrangements for science and technology. Diff: when nominated <> Current.[71] 07:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:NOT - WP:CRYSTAL (spirit, not letter), "Case studies...oak trees in North Carolina example", WP:NOT#ESSAY / WP:NOT#OR (combining WP:PRIMARYNEWS needing WP:OR), so WP:NOTNEWS, "Opinion pieces" WP:NOTOPINION "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete" which this fails. Brexit hasn't happened and won't for two years from now, but Wikipedia has an article on the "effects of that event on science and technology". This has to be the most preposterous article I've seen. If we knew what Brexit is, yes, but we don't, so this is speculation on speculation - one step too far. (per WP:CRYSTAL 1. Brexit is OK, but effects based on a negotiable-yet-to-happen future event fails 1. per 2032 U.S. presidential election example, and not like Ultimate fate of the universe as it's yet to be determined by being negotiable, so fails 3. and 5. (product) rumour is pertinent "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." - but does not apply to this)

CRYSTAL fork of Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Widefox; talk 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a fork of that article but one of several republications of chunks from [72] contrary to WP:5P1, "Wikipedia is not ... a collection of source documents". Cabayi (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit and arrangements for ... industry a, b, c, or place x, y, z, (i.e. Who, What, Where, When, Why) may be important news but all such articles will need rewriting once Brexit has been agreed, and are crystal-ish essay forks of Brexit / Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 bearable as a section of an article, but even as a spinout article irreparable due to WP:RECENTISM "Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. ". Widefox; talk 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Widefox; talk 13:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Talk:Effects of Brexit on science and technology 08:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC): the content is open to further improvement, such as some trimming and rephrasing in the usual way (like many other articles), but there is no need to treat its notability as doubtful. Brexit hasn't happened- Quite so, as the opening sentence states: "The effects of Brexit... include prospective changes to current arrangements related to scientific research, development and innovation that are within the scope of the negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union prior to Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." That can be read as a "long title". But, given that the current ("short") title has an unintended "crystal" air about it, that could be avoided by using a title such as Brexit and arrangements for science and technology. Before slapping on generically hostile and underserved tags, would it not be more helpful in respect of a new article under construction to pinpoint what are seen as parts needing improvement: where specifically do you see a problem? In my view, every UNESCO cite should give its page number. Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can we have a topic that's based on the effects of something that isn't negotiated yet? "further improvement" doesn't address the policy of WP:NOT. Widefox; talk 10:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Widefox's opinion noted, with dissent. The topic is obviously relevant to the Brexit negotiations, but needs a standalone article so as not to overload others. Qexigator (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - policy based arguments please WP:NOT has several relevant parts apart from CRYSTAL: this also fails "Case studies...oak trees in North Carolina example", WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOTNEWS, "Opinion pieces" WP:NOTOPINION. Relevant seems WP:INTERESTING. Widefox; talk 12:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was some fairly early reports appearing at the same time at the Boris Johnson bus was traveling the country the country spouting his lies, about how it was going to effect funding for universities so I think as an article it is valid. They were obviously doing projections much that everybody else, unlike the the UK Government, were there was an article in yesterdays Times or Independent, discuss how they had completed no projects or forecasts on what the economy is going to be like after Brexit. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP is WP:NOTNEWS for speculation/projections of the effects of events that haven't happened yet per policy above. Widefox; talk 12:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: ...removed by Qexigator, de bene esse 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is not simply about aftermath, as if there is now a new common era called "Anno Brexiti". It is about circumstances affecting ongoing real-life policy and negotiations for rearrangments under international treaties in respect of academic and other funding, trade, and industry, relevant to opportunities and outcomes for persons working in science and technology, and the product of their work, and for commerce and the public interest at large. The current version's section "Notice of withdrawal, March 2017" could be trimmed. On the whole the rest is factual not 'crystalling', including reporting on concerns expressed in "Public comment up to March 2017".Qexigator (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC) + 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator best to comment on edits not editors. I'm asking either detail the strawman or withdraw it per normal civility. Ad hominems don't advance a policy based argument, but underline an absence of one IMHO. Widefox; talk 17:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the comment was ad commentum non hominem. Qexigator (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"as if in pursuit of a mission" - like to build an encyclopedia? See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally. Widefox; talk 00:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps a name change is in effect, but the article is sourced to reliable sources, passing WP:GNG. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here because it's verifiable, sourced, speculation about the future, not baseless guessing, which is what CRYSTAL covers. If there's an issue with sourcing, that should be taken up on the talk page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree technically, except it still fails "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". The claims are wild in the article. My point being it's more like 2032 U.S. presidential election than 2020 U.S. presidential election in crystal as it's based on effects of an event that hasn't been negotiated, so speculation on the effects of a distant future deal, which is a step too far for a topic in that it will need a complete scrap and rewrite after Brexit, per the several objections above. Widefox; talk 00:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That quote comes from the bullet point about announcements and rumours for products, which obviously doesn't apply. Brexit is not a product, and even if it was, it's certainly not a rumour, with Article 50 having been recently triggered, there's a two-year deadline before some kind of Brexit happens, and there's plenty of verifiable speculation about the effects of that on science. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my mistake (I've corrected nom above). It's clear crystal does allow this, so it's more a value judgement of the news vs encyclopaedic content possible summed up in the other concerns. It's a lot like trying to write an article on economic effects of Brexit - impossible to get balance and weight and all WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and will need scrapping. Considering importance of Brexit, guess no way to stop this kind of speculation. Widefox; talk 23:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with comments the name is probably not the most suitable and suggests the article is WP:CRYSTAL but isn't, not sure what would fit though, ideas? --John Cummings (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's had a name change already. It's fair to say it has scope issues reflected by name changes, don't you think? Widefox; talk 20:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A highly notable subject widely discussed in depth by independent reliable sources AusLondonder (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTOPINION "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete". Sources a plenty, but how does it pass that? (or my corrected nom). Widefox; talk 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article consists mostly of original research based on primary sources, mostly newspaper clippings and politicians' speeches ("on this and this day minister Hammond said...", "on this and this day some academics from some university wrote an open letter...", and so on). This is hardly surprising, because the subject relates to an ongoing process where secondary sources (analyses, compilations, reviews) do not yet exist. However, this fact does not absolve the article from violating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOR. I do not think an original piece of writing that just synthesises the predictions appearing in public media is what an encyclopaedic article should be about. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We may safely surmise that, given the article's content and reflist, not even a casual reader is likely to mistake it as based mostly on 'newspaper clippings'. The lead summarises: When the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed in March 2017, the terms of Britain's disengagement were unknown. The outlook was uncertain for patent protection of innovation and for the future funding of scientific research, and opinions differed on whether scientific research and development would be affected by a loss of mobility and international collaboration, or whether Britain's withdrawal from the European Union (EU) should be seen as an opportunity to expand scientific collaboration. There follows Background citing government policy white paper, followed by Human resources and Funding, citing UNESCO, Royal Society, EU Commission, Nature... and so on. Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator I strongly suggest letting others tag the article with the concerns raised here per WP:OWN and let others have their opinions as this article will be stronger with more input not less. As you wouldn't let me replace 3 tags I put on with 1, I'm restoring the 3 until resolved. Widefox; talk 12:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but let it be mildly remarked that Quexigator is free to counter comments which misrepresent the content of the article. ... removed by Qexigator, de bene esse 18:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Kashmiri's assessment of the article. (It's the message, not the messenger that's important.) WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, problem with WP:10YT. (Widefox; talk 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is meant here by It's the message, not the messenger that's important. Qexigator (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Qexigator: That's my view of the content, and I was rather reserved. If you want me say truly what I think of this article, then - the entire article is a personal essay that should never be included in any publication that purports to be an encyclopaedia of any kind. The article content is nothing but sheer guessing. Brexit has not yet happened and it is by no means certain that it will happen at all (although it is likely). However, we are still talking about guessed future effects of one possible course of political developments. Maybe you will next write an article entitled Effects of winter 2024 on Alascan flora, basing it on Canadian government whitepapers, UN climate change reports, articles in New York Post and blogs of local politicians? — kashmiri ^TALK 21:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kashmiri, for explaining your opinion about the article, about which, as before said, I disagree: the article is not guessing, but reporting encyclopedically information about concerns notably expressed in a current debate on a major national and international policy issue. You should not imply that I am the author of this article, but as its history and Talk page shows I have made some edits to improve it, as well as to related articles. I fail to see the point of your allusion to Canada white papers. I am well aware that "Brexit has not yet happened and it is by no means certain that it will happen at all (although it is likely)", and have made that point in Talk elsewhere, and edited to that effect. In short, your comment is way off the mark, for no good reason that I can discern. Qexigator (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator either strike "menace", "revenge" and other WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL violations towards me, and telling other editors their comments are "way off the mark, for no good reason" or take with evidence to the appropriate place which is not here. Note to closer: please evaluate !votes here by policy based arguments - which should be the focus per WP:AFD. Widefox; talk 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Any closer or other person will be able to see the (agf, and therefore could be, and probably is, unintended per User:Widefox) disruptive tone of some of the latter's comments, which so experienced and practised an editor would do well (for the reasons in comments above-- some now removed by Qexigator, de bene esse 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)), to remove so as to clear the air of the negative objections that have been tagged and retagged,... (removed by Qexigator, de bene esse 22:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)) - good faith (of the page creator) need not be doubted, whose article is now being discredited for "COI"[73] - but who has accepted corrective edits and comments for adapting the article to encyclopedic style. Qexigator (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Too much speculation (even if it is sourced) for an upcoming or in-progress event like this to be appropriate for an article at this time. Wikipedia is supposed to behind the ball and not engage in WP:RECENTISM. That's pretty symptomatic throughout the article as it wanders around statements of what may happen or what the British government hopes to do. It clearly hasn't moved past the point of current events towards an encyclopedic topic yet given the amount of flux the topic will be under. I'm sure the topic could be notable in the future, but it's too soon right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dislike the title, but that's a minor matter. The essay-like and WP:OR parts need improving, but that is too. This is a live, important, and much-reported topic. Sources, easily found in just one UK WP:RS newspaper, The Guardian: UK scientists dropped from EU projects because of post-Brexit funding fears 12 Jul 2016, Brexit 'not good news for British science' warn new Nobel laureates 6 Oct 2016, Scientists need to wake up to the opportunities of Brexit 20 Dec 2016, The voice of science must be loud and clear in Brexit negotiations 17 Jan 2017, Brexit putting British scientists at risk of becoming bit-part players, warns report 7 Mar 2017. That's not an exhaustive list, but merely a selection of some of the results on the first page of a search. Narky Blert (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying with my above post, but those links are the reason why the topic currently doesn't meet GNG (as opposed to supporting it) due to recentism issues. That shouldn't be as much of a problem after Brexit actually happens when we'll have concrete reporting of events. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much of an essay, and WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL problems. —Lowellian (reply) 02:11, 16 April 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Street (Manhattan)

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

A short, unremarkable street in Lower Manhattan with no notable features mentioned by the article or resources like the New York Times. Sounder Bruce 23:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry in Moscow's The Street Book. More could be written about the city/church extension controversy. Station1 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to what the the nominee says, a brief trawl through the New York Times throws up dozens of articles between 1853 and 1858 on the Albany Street Extension controversy alone. There's no set criteria for notability for streets other than WP:GNG and the street certainly gets enough WP:SECONDARY coverage to merit its own article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable street. A controversy in the 1850s about extending it is hardly significant. Without a substantive reason of some kind of significance (political, social, cultural, etc.), a local road is just an instance of WP:MILL. MB 02:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Fiachra10003: Notability is not temporary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Station1 and Fiacha10003 and Michael Bednarek. Small parks and short streets in core areas of major cities are notable. --do ncr am 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Small parks and short streets in core areas of major cities are not exempt from GNG! MB 15:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several of the NYC street articles created by the same editor have indeed been non-notable (see Commerce Street (Manhattan) and Cornelia Street for instance), and I have counseled him to use better judgment in his article creations [74], but I think this street is just over the borderline into notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, regardless of my !vote, and pace Station1, an entry in Moscow, or in Fierstein's Naming New York, for that matter, does not indicate notability, as they are both intended to be comprehensive listings of all named streets in Manhattan -- and I think it goes without saying that not all named streets in the borough are inherently notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about this street to meet GNG, just being in a major city and a small 'controversy' in the 1850s isn't enough for notability. Rcsprinter¹²³ (discuss) 14:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are very good reasons for assuming that almost all streets in the centres of major cities should be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Even a one-block stub in the suburban reaches of Jacksonville? Or a small alley in the middle of Witchita? You can't make every street notable, or else we'll have a bloat problem on our hands. Sounder Bruce 14:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't refer to Jacksonville or Wichita as major cities! Not in a world context (which is what I was referring to; but to clarify, national capitals and cities like New York that have similar world status). Neither did I say every street in the city (I said in the city centre). Neither did I mention alleys. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Several Manhattan streets are not notable. This is not one of them. Even though being listed in a book doesn't necessarily indicate notability, Albany Street has historical importance, as proven by the recent article additions by Beyond My Ken. Even short, historically important streets like Doyers Street can have articles since notability is not temporary. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MediaGlobal

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP. Not to be confused with several firms of the same name. Kleuske (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from the launch press release, other links seem to have gone dead. I see one indication that the agency closed in 2015 [75]. This leaves the question whether it attained notability during its 2006-15 span? In 2012 the agency received a Silver Medal in the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation/UNCA Global Prize [76] but that feels a bit primary: a UN award for an agency based at its own Secretariat. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article does not provide any evidence that the company is notable, and it does not appear to be from my searches for sources. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:25, 12 April 2017 (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Computer Solutions

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable WP:SOLUTION article. Very light coverage of a routine nature fails WP:CORP. Bri (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searches reveal significant coverage in the English-language Indian press. Searches should also be done in other Indian languages. A stock-exchange listed company with a global presence. AusLondonder (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you share some of the best sources? I found routine stock price and business function stuff like Infinite Computer Solutions Surges 5% on Buyback Nod (NDTV) and Infinite Computer Solutions (India) submits shareholding pattern (Live Mint). - Bri (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with content such as:

"...moved on to become the experts in Healthcare IT Solutions - for which the company has won several accolades and awards"

No encyclopedically relevant prose. If this company were notable (of which I'm not convinced), then I'm sure that a non-COI editor would come along and create an NPOV article. There's no rush to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter V

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about an alleged album. Bordering on a hoax. The page was created over four years ago, and this alleged album still has not been released. The text of the article says it was recorded in 2011, which extends the 4 years to 6 years. I tried to redirect, but it was reversed based on the amount of references.

Without it being released, without a release date announced, and without any tracks being released in advance of the album... it is time to get rid of the article. Kellymoat (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the massive number of sources presently in the article by any number of extremely reliable sources. (MTV, HiphopDX, XXL, etc). An album does not need to be released to to be notable - note the years and years Chinese Democracy existed before release, or Detox (album) for that matter. Truly, truly terrible nomination, showing a complete misunderstanding of our notability standards. Please consider withdrawing this nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will not withdraw the nomination. Regardless of how many magazines have fallen for this hoax, the subject of the article does not exist. Kellymoat (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes even less sense than your nomination. Unreleased albums are not "hoaxes". Hoaxes are deliberate lies portrayed as truth. Do you have any evidence for such an outlandish claim? Even if you did, it wouldnt matter, as it still wouldn't negate third party reliable source coverage, which is the ultimate requirement here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After six years, with no album, how can it not be a hoax. Those "reliable" sources are simply putting out press releases that the artist tells them to put out. They don't have the album either.

That's my evidence of it being a hoax. THERE'S NO ALBUM. No one can prove that it is anything other than an album because there isn't one. Kellymoat (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax would only be if he spoke about making an album without any intent of actually making one, and without actually recording anything. There is no proof of such a scenario. Just because there wasn't a commercial release doesn't make it a hoax. It could just be recorded music sitting in a studio. But again, none of that has anything to do with Wikipedia's notability standards, I'm just disputing your dubious claims with that. To meet the WP:GNG, you need multiple, third party sources discussing the subject in significant detail. This article has way more than what is generally considered a minimal amount to meet the GNG. Conversely, your deletion nomination isn't centered around sourcing or the GNG. It's invalid. This is an open and shut case. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no one is reporting on an album simply because there hasn't been an album. These so-called reliable sources are simply stating what they've been told - told by the very artist that has not released the album.

We've had 6 years of waiting. Wikipedia isn't free advertising for the entertainment industry. It needs gone.Kellymoat (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said, whether or not it is released is not part of our notability requirements. It simply does not matter. (Feel free to point to a policy that says otherwise.) Unreleased albums are less likely to have their own articles, because they tend to not have third party reliable source coverage, but that is simply not the case here. Also, your argument is growing contradictory now. You can't accuse the subject to be both a "hoax" and "promotional" - that doesn't make any sense. How can something supposedly not exist, and have never existed, but also be used in a promotional manner? Why would you have concerns over promoting something that does not exist? Conceptually, you need to pick and argument, and stick with it. (Though my stance is that neither apply.) Using both doesn't make any sense, especially considering that the article's tone isn't overtly promotional, and is largely written according to unconnected third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, a record label exec has confirmed it for a 2017 release. And it's not a hoax, with a copy being illegally bought by someone, and leaking a track online. So virtually all aspects of this nomination are false.Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be clear, the sourcing found in doing just a very basic search out is even better than what's present in the article. The album has received dedicated articles written by some of the highest profile reliable sources in the music industry (and all RS's per consensus at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES):

Billboard (Major music magazine/website, decade spanning, one of the biggest authorities in music.)
Billboard again
MTV, quite possibly the biggest television source in the music world
MTV again
B.E.T (a national television network)
B.E.T. again
Fuse, another television based source. Very lengthy article detailing the album's development
Pitchfork a long running general music website.
Vibe, a long running rap/rnb magazine/website
XXL, long running print magazine and website

And that's just the peak of the iceberg. I could double the list if there was any doubt. This album has received more RS cover than many albums that are released. Two or three of these would be enough to scrape by the minimum of the GNG. We're well past the minimum required to have an article here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying that a press agent sent out a couple scripts, which media outlets then reported on.

But at some point, "the album" needs to become an album instead of "an idea". By keeping the article, all we are doing is furthering the propaganda. Kellymoat (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even both to look at all the article you missed when you failed to follow through on WP:BEFORE? None of the sources I presented are press releases, interviews, or remotely promotional. Most address release issues, recording details, related lawsuits, disagreements with management, and all sorts of notable commentary in creating the album. And they're all third party sourcing from high level sources with WikiProject-level consensus for their use. Your response is a sloppy and thoughtless attempt to discount strong sourcing, an approach that, actually put into practice, would make it impossible to source virtually anything on Wikipedia. Luckily, nothing you've said above has anything to do with Wikipedia policy or guidelines - you've yet to cite anything at all. You're operating entirely on your own personal opinions on what articles should exist, and flimsy ones at that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Sergecross73. Even though this album was not released (and it is doubtful that it will ever be released), it still has received enough attention and coverage from reliable, third-party sources to support its notability. I would recommend to the nominator that he or she please ground AfDs in Wikipedia policy and guidelines to avoid issues like this in the future. I have noticed this kind of nomination being a recurring factor in this user's past AfDs; if you want to be involved with the AfD process, then I would strongly encourage you to better familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines. And thank you for the discussion Sergecross73. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage to meet WP:NALBUM and, given the steady stream of reporting/speculation over the last five years at least (here are two examples from 2012 [77][78]), it's not unreasonable to think the project fits the "high-profile" standard given to albums like the Chinese Democracy example cited within the "Unreleased material" subsection of the guideline. Gongshow talk 05:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MAP Health Management

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

The article does not provide with any credible references/sources that convey notability and does not pass WP:COMPANY; most of the links cited are either press-releases, blog reviews or marketplace listings. TopCipher (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2017 (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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laetitia du Couëdic

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

Individual is non-notable as she has yet to win any major national or international championships as an adult rider. Fails WP:NEQUESTRIAN and is WP:TOOSOON Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A US-based Google News search alone provides results which indicate WP:GNG is met, including but not limited to:

Article could use improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- My take is that these are simply sports interviews for the most part, not articles about her. She’s kind of a novelty, young, but not really having accomplished a lot yet. Has a lot of PR, but not really notability-level. There are a lot of junior riders who win national events, we don’t give most of them their own articles. But I don’t have particularly strong feelings about the issue; if others want to do a WP:HEY and improve it, they can. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 9 April 2017 (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. We can't relist this discussion forever. There's real disagreement about whether WP:ENT is met, and the article is no longer completely unsourced. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Fairlie

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

BLP unsourced since 2008 (almost 9 years ago). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:ENT. She has had several significant roles in notable television shows and movies. Her significant roles, such as in Little Bear, can easily be found by just searching. A couple of seconds alone verified her role as Little Bear. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is required to verify all of that. No sourcing = no verification of notability. The article is currently unsourced – if it's still unsourced in a week, it should probably be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how AfD works. SL93 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And...really? - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Thompson. SL93 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's exactly how AfD works – notability is demonstrated by sourcing. That's the only real way to demonstrate whether an individual is notable or not. And "really?" what?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but the keep voters don't need to add those sources to the article. It's not required. The really refers to your comment in that AfD, which is also currently unsourced. SL93 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        "Keep" voters that don't add sources aren't worth much IMO, especially if they quote no sources here either. If you believe an article is worth keeping, you find the sourcing and add it to the article. That's what I do. Meanwhile, the Raymond Thompson discussion belongs at that AfD, not this one... In any case, you've apparently got one source for this one, and it's no more than a passing mention. This one needs much more to merit a "Keep" vote. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't need more than to verify multiple roles to make it pass WP:ENT, passing mentions or not. I can show more references to prove the roles if it makes you happy. I don't think hypocritical opinions (as in the above mentioned other AfD) are worth much either. SL93 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have also been participating in AfDs for years, including for many entertainers. I do know that verifying multiple significant roles is enough to keep an article. SL93 (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not – what verifies that roles are "notable" is independent sourcing. WP:NACTOR does not trump WP:BASIC, it's meant to support it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BASIC says no such thing. SL93 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, there's no arguing with that... Suffice it to say, if this is still where it is now on Sunday or Monday, I'll be voting "delete". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I could honestly care less. This was put up for discussion anyway. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment – Check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that's one guideline I generally ignore, especially for any BLP subject that's been active since the 1990s. That one may make sense if you're talking about, for example, a lower profile actor from the 1930s where the sources are likely not readily available on the internet. But that particular claim does not apply to the subject of this AfD. In any case, I view WP:NEXIST as basically being like a "blank check" that can be twisted around to argue keeping virtually any article because "there might be sources out there about it that exist..." I'm basically from Missouri: Don't make an unprovable claim – show me the goods. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, yes, you do "need more than to verify multiple roles to make it pass WP:ENT, passing mentions or not". NACTOR is not passed just because multiple roles are asserted, because every actor who's ever had roles at all would clear ENT if asserting the roles were all it took. We've seen people try to claim an NACTOR pass on the basis of a person having had two unnamed extra roles, in fact. NACTOR is passed only when the depth and quality of sourcing shows that the performer was the subject of substantive media coverage in reliable sources for those roles — even the question of whether the roles were "major" enough to count as significant for the purposes of passing NACTOR lives or dies on the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the majorness of the roles. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is the case, then WP:NACTOR and the rest of the supplementary guidelines are really not needed. All that Wikipedia would need is the GNG. SL93 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Not true. If all we "needed" was the GNG, and we had no supplementary guidelines to clarify what counts as a notability claim in the first place, then we would have to start keeping articles about everybody who ever got into their local newspaper for doing anything at all — including presidents of church bake sale committees or condominium boards, teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes, winners of high school poetry contests, the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got into the media for waking up one morning to find a pig in her yard, and me. So no, neither SNGs nor the GNG exempt a person who passes one of them from having to pass the other too. A person whose notability passes an SNG does still have to be sourceable to media coverage for their passage of the SNG, and a person who has media coverage for the purposes of GNG still has to have that coverage be in a context that counts as a notability claim under an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You know I can read what you're saying without your italics, right? SL93 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm beginning the process of adding sources to this article. I'll try to look at it more over the weekend. We'll see if it gets there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @IJBall: If it does, just ping me so I can withdraw this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Coffee! At the least, I'll put up a "Delete" or "Keep" vote once I've done more work on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: I've added a little more sourcing tonight, but I'm still not quite ready to vote "Keep" (though it's getting closer). However, I have found no real sourcing support for Little Bear (TV series). This is the problem with case like this one – the role that you might think would "cinch" someone to clear WP:NACTOR in fact turns out not to be (very) notable in its own right. Basically, children's shows tend to get very little mainline press... I'll try to follow up tomorrow or Tuesday (before the first deadline on this one) to see what else I can find. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the subject is mentioned in 20th_Youth_in_Film_Awards#Best_Young_Performer_in_a_TV_Movie.2C_Pilot_or_Mini-Series, which is not a significant award (Youth in Film Awards). She was one of the five winners in the category "Best Performance in a TV Movie/Pilot/Made-for-Video: Young Ensemble", which further shows that this was a rather minor honour. "Young performer" awards do not carry as much weight as the adult ones, generally. The voice acting career is not not notable either, and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Coffman. The award isnt much notable, but the subject of the article is notable in my opinion. I think the person deserves an article on wikipedia. Talking about references, if there arent any then they should be added instead of deleting the article. {{refimprove}} —usernamekiran[talk] 09:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles with a refimprove tag on them just because it's theoretically possible that the referencing might become improvable someday. For Kristin Fairlie to get that treatment, the onus is on you to definitively show that the necessary depth of sourcing about her does exist — it's not enough to just say that the necessary depth of sourcing might just maybe possibly exist without showing hard evidence that it is really out there for real. Anybody could just say that better sources might someday show up about anything or anyone who exists at all — the way to earn a "keep and flag for refimprove" is to show that better sources do exist to improve the article with. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with "Per WP:ENT. She has had several significant roles in notable television shows and movies". Dean Esmay (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What determines a pass or fail of WP:ENT is not the simple listing of roles — every actor who exists at all would pass ENT if listing roles were all it took. Whether an actor gets a Wikipedia article or not hinges on whether she has garnered sufficient reliable source coverage for those roles, but there's still no evidence of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete is where I come down on this. Fairlie has actually had some substantial credits. But the projects themselves are of the type that don't generate a lot of independent coverage, so what coverage there is for her is... on the "light" side. In fact, that is generally true of voice actors – they generally don't get press coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has been in enough major productions that I consider her to be as notable as an actor having only two notable roles in two notable works--just as long as that laundry list of roles can be verified. If there is any reason to believe the list has major errors, I would reconsider. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mjällby

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is more of an internal Wikipedia style matter than a question of subject, but the side that has supported deletion have correctly pointed out that several articles on the page merely have "Brexit" in them as part of the title, not separate articles that would have been titled "Brexit" and which require disambiguation. The examples cited by the "Keep" side, such as "Brexit Secretary" are unconvincing. That article on the person responsible for managing the process would not have been titled with merely "Brexit" in any case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit (disambiguation)

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

Dab with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC plus a single ambiguous WP:RELATED-ish item (the movie) and several WP:PTM non-ambiguous items (all related) which can all be covered in the primary topic Done. This is better as a hatnote Done. It's WP:TWODABS and a magnet for non dab items - more like a bad WP:SIA collecting non ambiguous items Widefox; talk 00:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Brexit_.28disambiguation.29. Widefox; talk 00:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Ping Kpalion. Widefox; talk 11:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for a dab in this circumstance. Its existence can only confuse readers into thinking that there are things named "Brexit" unrelated to the sole encyclopedic meaning. bd2412 T 02:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with BD2412's logic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several of the items aren't really barred WP:PTM, which deals with examples like not listing the Louisville Zoo at Zoo, and not listing the Mississippi River at River, or North Carolina at North. Brexit Act for example, the specific part is "Brexit", not "Act", and it should be listed just like the Patriot Act is at Patriot. Same with the Brexit referendum, where "Brexit" is the specific part, and which was widely just called "Brexit' in reliable sources in the immediate aftermath (e.g. [79], [80]). Those two along with the Brexit talks, are all valid DAB entries since it is plausible to just refer to them as Brexit, or to reasonbly infer that they could be refered to that way. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PTM means asking oneself if the topic is referred to solely as "Brexit" which none of them are (apart from the movie). That's standard procedure, rather than barring rules. The other vital aspect is all these are WP:RELATED, so can be covered in the primary topic. There's actually only one topic, which is Brexit plus related items. As such a hatnote at the primary topic and links in the body cover it, and spares synthetic generation of non-ambiguous in a dab failing TWODABS. (and the first source is a primary reaction piece talking about a Brexit, nobody refers to the referendum as "Brexit" - people voted for Brexit. As for Brexit Act vs Patriot Act the difference isn't just the latter is the official name, the former not and isn't even bolded as an alternative title in the article or even mentioned - it's just a redirect (Google "Brexit Act" and first hit is "Theresa May must get second Brexit Act through Parliament after EU ." - it's just technicalities of steps leading to Brexit), it's that nobody refers to the act as solely Brexit which is the standard procedure. It's that simple. That's why the Brexit Act is stable in the see also as edit consensus says it isn't solely known as "Brexit".) Widefox; talk 20:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PTM means taking out partial title matches where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference, which isn't the case here. I've already provided two links above that refer to the Brexit referendum as Brexit, or at least in a way that could reasonably be confused for Brexit. Other sources use the term in similarly ambiguous ways. Wednesday briefing: Did Putin interfere in Brexit?, No, Russia didn't deliver Brexit – the will of the people cannot be hacked, Yes, Vladimir Putin Tried to Hack #Brexit – But Brits Paid No Attention, and Russia Brexit meddling? Labour MPs DEMAND inquiry over Putin's influence in Leave vote all use "Brexit" to refer to the referendum vote allegedly affected by the Russians. Brexit: foreign states may have interfered in vote, report says, where an ambiguious referent structure could lead the unware to think Brexit was the vote, or the report. Other times, it's unclear if Brexit refers to the exit, the exit talks, or the department responsible for Brexit. For example, we have Who is in charge of Brexit? ‘It’s all very difficult,’ says Hammond and Theresa May Made The Man In Charge Of Brexit Carry Her Handbag, where the title's use of Brexit refers to people leading the Brexit department in charge of the Brexit talks, but surely not someone who is totally in charge of removing the UK from the EU, which would require bilateral action. It may seem clear to Brits or those familiar with Brexit, but to many of our readers, it's not so clear what Brexit is, so it's reasonable to refer to many of these entries as just Brexit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, taking a look at the page history, this claim that there's an "edit consensus" that only Brexit and the movie are valid DAB entries, seems to be solely based on you moving the other entries down after This is Paul created the page, only to be reverted by Mhockey, and then you re-reverting him. If anything, that shows that of the editors who took a stance on the issue, there was a slight preference for having the referendum as a DAB entry. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TWODABS applies. The rest are partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patar knight. There are at least three items on the page that could be singularly referred to as Brexit; and terms such as Brexit Act and Brexit Secretary are regularly cited in reliable media (see here, here and here for examples). This is Paul (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check again - the two sources I checked (Guardian, BBC) do not refer to either topic as "Brexit". As such, they don't support the position that they are referred to as solely "Brexit". Nobody refers to them as such, as per the consensus at the dab that this is not the case. Brexit's an important topic but creating this dab doesn't assist readers. Maybe an Index or something would be useful? (although I'll give you that the dab Defence does list Defence minister as a sub entry of National security disambiguating grouped entries, but more typical / straightforward Education (disambiguation) doesn't list Education minister) Widefox; talk 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be being over-pedantic on this, and even admit that other articles follow similar rules, so are you planning to list those for deletion as well? I'm kinda lost here. Also, I'm wondering if anyone else's head is starting to hurt. This is Paul (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"over-pedantic" as in correct per guideline, I'd agree thanks. The only two keeps here are Patar (who's disagreeing with me in several places - nothing implied by that), and you as creator. Consensus is clear so far amongst dab project members here where we do this "pedantry" called disambiguation. It wasn't even my idea to delete, but someone else's at the project. Widefox; talk 15:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps WP:PTM could be beter written and point out that neither Zoo (disambiguation) nor Louisville (disambiguation) contain links to Louisville Zoo. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But then we have List of zoos by country, it seems, which kind of blows this paper-thin argument away. In fact this whole nomination rests on a hair's breadth of logic. This is Paul (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that List of zoos by country is not a disambiguation page and can contain whatever content might be within scope of the list article. older ≠ wiser 20:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, although, in this case, I don't think we need a list of Brexit-related articles either. A navbox might be a good idea, though. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apart from the film, there is no actual ambiguity being addressed by this page. older ≠ wiser 20:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brexit is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARY meaning; the film can be dealt with by a hatnote. The other entries on the DAB page under discussion are all subsidiary to the primary topic. None is known simply as Brexit, but always as Brexit-something-or-other. They can be listed in a "See also" section in the primary article; or if that gets too big, perhaps split out into a list of Brexit-related topics.

Quaere: does this DAB page help readers find their way around Wikipedia? My answer - no.

(Someone had to say this: Brexit means Brexit. I'll get me coat ;-) Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (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.

[1] ttp://www.pgatour.com/la/en/news/2017/03/12/matthews-claims-first-career-win-in-canuelas.html

[2] ttp://www.philly.com/philly/sports/golf/2013-us-open-merion/20130604_Temple_s_Brandon_Matthews_is_a_U_S__Open_alternate.html

[3] ttps://www.google.com.ng/search?q=Okon+Goes+to+School&oq=Okon+Goes+to+School&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i59j69i60l2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Okon+Goes+to+School&tbm=nws&*

[4] ttp://thenationonlineng.net/anticipated-movies-2017/

[5] ttp://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-life/ghost-stories-the-theatre-show-you-may-not-be-brave-enough-to-see-20160630-gpvh1n.html/

[6] ~~http://arts.theaureview.com/news/haunting-pyschological-thriller-ghost-stories-to-tour-australia-from-july/~~

[7] ttp://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/events/tempest

[8] ttp://www.complex.com/music/2017/03/yung-simmie-tawks-fancy-iggy-azalea-grand-theft-auto-go90

[9] ttp://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/yung-simmie-its-simmie-season-2-mixtape/

[10] ttp://www.xxlmag.com/rap-music/the-break/2014/07/the-break-presents-yung-simmie/

[11] ttp://thesource.com/2014/04/02/yung-simmie-talks-new-album-raider-klan-more-in-miami/

[12] ttp://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/florida-rappers/

[13] ttp://thesource.com/2014/03/04/yung-simmie-delivers-his-latest-lyrical-exercise/

[14] ttp://therapfest.com/new-hot-hip-hop-exclusives/premieres/rapfest-premiere-9th-wonders-mentee-mark-steele-drops-new-single-wave-2/

[15] ttp://www.themaskedgorilla.com/new-music-yung-simmie-full-metal-2/

[16] ttp://www.themaskedgorilla.com/new-music-yung-simmie-dead-beat/

[17] ttp://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-underground-king-prod-by-purp-dogg-new-song.1971835.html

[18] ttp://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-simmie-season-2-new-mixtape.116623.html

[19] ttp://www.hotnewhiphop.com/stream-yung-simmies-new-mixtape-its-simmie-season-news.22609.html?

[20] ttp://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-basement-music-3-new-mixtape.116081.html

[21] ttp://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-fantastic-video-new-video.36362.html

[22] ttp://thesource.com/2014/02/20/check-out-yung-simmies-new-visual-for-strap-in-my-lap/

[23] ttp://thesource.com/2014/03/25/yung-simmie-reveals-full-metal-freestyle/

[24] ttp://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-shoot-da-3-feat-denzel-curry-new-song.1970452.html

[25] ttp://www.clashmusic.com/news/listen-yung-simmie-acrobat-freestyle

[26] ttp://thesource.com/2014/07/02/yung-simmie-spaceghostpurrp-link-up-for-thankful/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]