Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 July	14 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Chi Zui

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

Certainly a hoax, created on April 1 of 2006. The only mention of the name, outside of Wikipedia mirrors is on this blog, note that the entries were created on the same date and they directly refer to Wikipedia. There are no mentions of the name in Google Books or Scholar, and as a Chinese speaker, it does not sound like a typical Chinese name to me. So delete and archive to WP:HOAXLIST. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of the eye watering lack of verifiability, on which articles here live or die. This one doesn't look too well. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very likely a hoax as indicated by the blog which used Mao Zedong to illustrate the person. It is a possible Chinese name, however, looking through some Chinese lists of notable Roman Catholics I see no name that looks that like it could be this person, I'm therefore inclined to delete it. If the nom is certain that it is a hoax, then a speedy delete is in order. Hzh (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fellow is almost certainly fictitious; the blog clearly used an image of Mao Zedong to depict him. Honestly, this article is probably the result of a prank. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite obviously a hoax. ShangKing (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No opinion of this being a hoax, but it doesn't pass WP:V let alone GNG (at least in this latin alphabet spelling).Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I cannot comment on whether this is a hoax, but the story has a credible feel about it to me, not that I am an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletre The story may have a "credible feel" to it, but it lacks any sources. That a totally unsourced, probably hoax like this has existed on Wikipedia for 12 years is a severe indictement of the accuracy of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Btw, this is probably the oldest hoax on Wikipedia so far discovered. Funplussmart (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearch (yes i know its not definitive but still...) brings up nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i see this was created way back in 2006 by a spa, a question for the wiki boffins out there, why isnt there a bot trawling for articles like this one ie. old articles created by an ip/spa with no references is tagged/categorised as needs to be reviewed? ps. well done Champion for finding it. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coolabahapple: I guess I don't see a need for bots doing it if editors like me occasionally do it, there might be tools for editors to do it, but I'm not entirely sure. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Champion, a bit like me adding "use dmy/oz english" tags to appropriate OZ articles, around 8,000 articles checked, 180,000+ to go:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most depressing thing about this apparent hoax isn't even that it has survived for so long--it's that it's survived for so long even though someone posted on the talk page about it being an apparent hoax in 2006 (shortly after this article was created). How the fuck did no one notice this message until now? I don't know the answer to this question but it clearly points to a serious underlying problem here that this slipped under the radar for so long. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @IntoThinAir: Interesting, having looked at the history of the talk page, the blog that I linked before also has a page mentioning "Cialovesyou", which is the account who posted on the talk page. Quack? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @IntoThinAir: Confirmed, note that the link to the blog on Cialovesyou's user page and the one I mentioned in the rationale points to the same profile, so I guess it's the same editor having a go at how quickly it would be spotted. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ABP News. Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABP Live

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

ABP Live is actually the name for English website and social media profile of ABP Group — means the TV channel isn't ever exist. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 03:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect with ABP News. ABP Live is just an English repository website for ABP News videos. see https://www.abplive.in/about-abp-news --DBig Xray 21:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DBigXray above. Nothing in terms of independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ansh 666 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madison House (Kincardine, Ontario)

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

Poorly sourced article about a house, whose only potential claim of notability is that it's purported to be haunted. But the only references present here are a ghosthunter's Blogspot blog and a tourist directory, which are not reliable sources for the purposes of establishing a house's notability. Haunted or not, houses are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get them in the door. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I came to this thinking delete. The only other source I could find about "Madison" was [1], which is primary (some kind of B&B) and weak as a source. However, in searching the address (343 Durham Market Square), the house is registered as a historic place in Ontario - [2] p. 8, [3], [4], [5]. However, it probably should not stay at the current title. Chris857 (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even a registered historic place still requires reliable source coverage, and isn't handed any automatic freebie on purely primary sources just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a registered historical landmark per the Ontario Heritage Act. The government reports on it alone as supplied by Chris857 satisfy GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. GNG is media coverage, not government reports — if government reports conferred a GNG pass all by themselves, we would have to keep an article about every single building that exists on earth including residential houses. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of GNG and what types of sources are considered evidence of notability. GNG explicitly states sources of evidence of notablity include "but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals," not simply the ambiguous term "media." --Oakshade (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand GNG correctly. For example, construction companies always have to file construction plans with a city planning commission before they can build any building or structure at all, and then the city planning commission has to vote to approve or reject those plans, or demand further changes to comply with regulations — meaning that every single structure that exists can always be sourced to a government report, because no structure ever comes into existence without being documentable to city planning commission files. You can't even put a granny suite in your backyard without the city planning commission having a file on that — so every granny suite in existence is documentable to government reports too. But we can't simply extend notability to every building that exists — so a building's notability cannot rest on routine sources that every building could always show, and has to rest on a class of sourcing that doesn't routinely exist for every building: namely, being singled out for special dedicated attention by media. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing routine building permits/applications and files that all buildings have with in-depth analysis and historical context reports' that are not just documents on file at city hall. Your granny suite in your backyard does not have a government in-depth report of the analysis of the historical significance of it as this topic does. If you'd like to change GNG to not accept reports by government agencies as evidence of notability, you need to make you proposal and case on the GNG talk page, not push your new agenda on a single AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In order to pass WP:GEOFEAT: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I don't see the reliable third-party sourcing here yet. The government documents that grant historical significance appear primary - perhaps I'm wrong on this. If precedent exists that all historically notable houses pass GEOFEAT please ping me. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government reports on private entities such as this location are not primary. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Three of the four sources are from the city of Kincardine, which is the city that authorized its historical heritage, and are the documentation of the way it became a heritage site. The other is a walking tour of all the historic properties of Kincardine. Are you making the argument all of these heritage properties in this small Ontario town deserve their own wikipedia article based on WP:GNG? Because they should all have this level of sourcing. Even assuming the references are not primary, the sources are trivial - and the reason this house has an article in the first place is for a completely different reason, because it was listed on some haunted ghost tour blog or something. A historic property can be notable, and fairly easily so - but a property cannot pass WP:GNG if the only sources are the ones which reference the fact it's historical in the first place. SportingFlyer talk 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy. "The city that authorized the historical heritage" is not the property. The property is not the city, not owned by the city nor a city government entity. A property easily passes WP:GNG if the only sources are the ones which reference the fact it's historical, provided the coverage is in-depth as it is in this case. And in-depth historical analysis is not "trivial".--Oakshade (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more difficult than you make it out to be per WP:PRIMARY. The local government ordinance is nowhere close to being an independent source. It's not as if the municipality is publishing information about this house specifically: this type of coverage would be expected for all heritage listed properties in the town. There's no other coverage of it anywhere. Not every historical building gets a notability pass for Wikipedia because it's historical, especially when the only documentation about its history is the type of documentation which exists for any historic building in any jurisdiction by the local government, which is what we have here. (along with a town "walking tour" which appears to list all historic properties in town.) SportingFlyer talk 14:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be blending the claim that the government sources of this property are "primary" with regular notability arguments. It makes no difference if the government makes reports on all historic properties or just one as the government is still not the property and therefore not primary. Every National Register of Historic Places property would be considered "primary" under that scenario which of course they aren't. If you'd like to say "I don't think all properties the government considers historic are notable," fine. But to claim government reports are "primary" to private properties is simply false. --Oakshade (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply interpreting WP:PRIMARY properly: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. — which is what the Kincadine local ordinance and property description is. SportingFlyer talk 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking a subsection of Wikipedia:No original research to attempt to show a government source is a primary one to a private property really looks like grabbing at staws. That quote is meant to discourage original research, which of course this is not. Just that the secondary source is geographically close to the topic doesn't magically transform it into a "primary" source. And I'm surprised I have to say this, this property is not an "event." Anyway, since you're valuing the content on the NOR page and classifying this topic as an "event," WP:SECONDARY states a secondary source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." The property is "at least one step removed" from the government reports and those reports are the very definition of WP:SECONDARY. --Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're grasping at straws to keep an article which should clearly be deleted, to be honest. Let's recap: Does this property get a notability waiver for being a Canadian National Heritage Site? Not from any available sources, no. Does it get a notability waiver for being an Ontario Heritage Site? No, as there are many of these sites. Perhaps this notable enough for a list. The only available sources shown for a keep are primary sources showing the property is an Ontario Heritage Site, which can be expected for all properties on the Ontario Heritage Site list (I'm excluding the one or two sentence blurb from the walking tour brochure.) No other sources are available... and again, the reason this article exists is to promote a "haunted house." They may not be primary sources since the owners of the house didn't write about the house and try to get it published. SportingFlyer talk 06:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've changed the subject as your "primary" argument holds no weight. Sorry, it was you who was grasping at straws with that attempted application of WP:NOR for your false argument that government reports on this private property were "primary." The in-depth coverage from the detail analysis of the government reports easily show this passing WP:GNG. Your false "those are primary sources" argument didn't work. If you think this or any article "should clearly be deleted" then try to build a consensus for your opinion which doesn't seem to be happening. --Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. The government sources aren't primary to the house, but they are primary to your concept of notability (that the house is notable because the government has made it a local heritage site), and if we accept them, we erode WP:GEOFEAT by allowing features included at the sub-national heritage level to be included in the encyclopedia. Give me a secondary source that's more than a couple sentences. SportingFlyer talk 08:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're not even reading correctly. The property is notable because of in-depth coverage from secondary sources, in this case government reports. The government is secondary source even by your standards of applying the WP:NOR policy which you linked to above. Now that you're finally admitting the government sources aren't primary to the house, let's move on. --Oakshade (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it was included on the Canadian Register of Historic Places then it would be notable per WP:GEOFEAT: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." However, this appears to merely be a local listing, which does not count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note this should be covered at List of historic places in Southwestern Ontario#Bruce County.

First, this should not be outright deleted, because merge to the list-article is available as an alternative to deletion. It does not yet seem to be included in that list-article; it should be added. I myself am not familiar enough with Canadian historic places to understand why it is not yet listed there; User:Magicpiano is an editor who has developed that list-article and others like it and I would be glad if they could comment here.

I prefer "Keep" over "Merge" because the information available, i.e. this source given above, suggests to me it is equivalent to U.S. National Register of Historic Places eligibility ("Italianate architecture – low pitched mansard roof – centre tower on the front façade – windows with rounded headers and decorative keystones and a verandah with Greek columns – built in 1870’s by Thomas C. Rooklodge whose family operated the “pork factory” / Designation By-law – 4641 Date Designated: January 3, 1985 ). It would be nice to have a separate nomination document about it, and I presume such exists, [it does exist] although it is designated ~~by the province of Ontario~~ [by local government] and is apparently not a Canadian national historic site. --Doncram (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC) --17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: It's not equivalent to the national register of historic places: see Ontario Heritage Act. It shouldn't be on the list you mention. I would be a keep if more historic notability could be shown; this is just a property which a local municipality has declared a local heritage site, but there are many of these sites in this town alone. SportingFlyer talk 17:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I was going to say, in fact there is separate nomination document (linked above) sufficing to provide information to develop the article more, and IMO comparable to U.S. National Register documentation. Based on photo of the house, I would have called it Second Empire in style, with elements of Italianate as Second Empire buildings often have, but the summary above was just calling it Italianate. However the Walking tour brochure does term it Second Empire, so that can be used in the article.

I do think it should be included in the Bruce County historic places list article, which is supposed to cover sites designated "locally, provincially, territorially, nationally, or by more than one level of government." Given your assertion I am not sure if it is province-level or not (what does according to Ontario Heritage Act mean, I will go look that up, yes [okay i see the provincial act gives authority to local government] ) but it is at least locally-designated. We do have list-articles about local registers in the U.S., and about individual places on just a local register if there is adequate information, as there is here. There's plenty about it, IMO. This is fine to Keep and develop. --Doncram (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, all of the locally designated historic places can/should be covered in the Bruce County list-article or a separately-broken out list-article about places in Kincardine alone. They don't have to get separate articles, necessarily, but they can get separate articles if there's enough info available, as there is here IMO. --Doncram (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And about the "primary" quality of the sources, as Oakshade notes above, they are not primary to the property; calling them secondary is more appropriate. SportingFlyer is right that as local sources they are not quite as good as sources that have undergone more levels of professional review, and none is guaranteed here. U.S. NRHP listings do get some state-level review reflected in modifications to the application forms. But state-level or local-level source forms are in fact used directly in many NRHP listings, with or without any further documents from higher state or national levels (although there may have been higher review in fact or at least potentially). So we have to go partly on the apparent quality of the documents, which seem okay to me. --Doncram (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To settle one question, I just began adding Kincardine locally-designated historic sites to the list-article. Note the list-article has a municipal listing identifier column which I am trying to use, but having some trouble (discuss at Talk:List of historic places in Southwestern Ontario#Kincardine local historic sites). There is no "Notes" or "Description" column, so it is not feasible to merge all available material, even to give a single descriptive word like "Italianate", into the list-article. Unless the standardized format of this Ontario historic places list-article is to be changed, it seems we need to "Keep" the article to allow description. --Doncram (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation should occur on the talk page of that article. I disagree with what you've done, as that list is for registered historic places as searchable on [6] - there is only one registered building in Kincardine, and it's not this property. This is why I'm fighting for a delete, where I am probably a lean keep on geographical AfDs: all we have to go on is a primary document for a provincial heritage registry, not something which would automatically be notable. SportingFlyer talk 18:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this document: [7] says Kingston has over 1,000 places on the Ontario Heritage register, but only 120 on the national register. I can't find anything showing this is on the national register, and in the absence of documents on the property that don't relate to its local listing/aren't primary, I don't think it can be kept. SportingFlyer talk 18:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay maybe the Kincardine ones should be in a separate new list-article, and maybe not in that Southwestern Ontario list-article, and that is being discussed there, including with more info about the Kingston example. However IMHO there certainly should/will be a list of Kincardine municipal historic sites somewhere. So the existing Madison House article will not be an orphan; it will be listed in context somewhere. However we still have more reliable enough info about the architecture and history of this house than will be covered in such list-article, so keeping a separate article still makes sense. Of course we should drop most or all of the rubbish about being haunted.

Maybe we should not get too bogged down in whether to call the available official coverage "primary" vs. "secondary". I suppose you can call it primary if it is written without including explicit sourcing to other documents, and I think these do not include lists of references. However there are 70,000 Wikipedia articles about U.S. NRHP places which mostly are sourced just to documents relating to their listing, which you may call "primary". Many of the NRHP documents do reference other sources; many do not. You can't be too harsh about "primary" sources; they are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they're not being stretched to make disputable points. I don't think it is controversial to say the Madison House has elements of Italianate style, etc., based on the local listing saying so, plus the photos which show those elements to the informed editors. --Doncram (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've decided that NRHP and Canadian national historic places can get notability waivers — in this instance, we're dealing with a property whose only sourcing is its addition to a local heritage list. Whether an article on the local heritage list for a 12,000 person town is notable is not for me to say at this point, and I don't mind if the information is captured somewhere, but there's nowhere near enough to keep this particular article at this moment. SportingFlyer talk 06:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the very lengthy discussion above, including a *potential* ambiguity in GNG vs GEOFEAT being discussed, I'm going to relist this again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final re-list; should be closed as no consensus if no editors' comment subsequent to this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What, is this still open. Source(s) were found to develop the article. It is listed on a local historic register, and there is plenty of info to be reported. The comment that there is "nowhere near enough to keep this particular article" is just wrong, IMHO. I would say "obvious keep" at this point. --Doncram (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not justify a stand alone article. Although that is true for the majority of articles we have on buildings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris857, Oakshade and doncram. Satisfies GNG. Registered under the Ontario Heritage Act. The sources are fine. The "registered by local government" argument leaves me completely unmoved. If it is a listed building, it is listed building. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, since this could be merged and redirected to the area in which it is located, Kincardine, Ontario. (For the avoidance of doubt, Durham Market Square or Street or whatever, Kincardine has coverage apart from this building (eg By-law 518), so an article on this Durham Market location is an option for compromise). James500 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. I dug deeper into the interwebs by removing the word "Ontario" and finding several potentially good sources, including books. If it's "listed" provincially, that should be in the article before this AfD is closed. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Patel)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability, no indepth coverage in independent sources. GRuban (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is this different from any of the other public sculptures on the List of public art in Milwaukee? --Theredproject (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, out of the first three, Washington Monument (Milwaukee) has two nontrivial articles about it. Juneau Monument has a nontrivial article, and what seems to be a small book! Spirit of Commerce does seem to be weak. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. For lack of discussion, although I imagine an editorial merger would not be objected to. Nobody argues to keep, after all. Sandstein 09:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Rosati)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability: no indepth independent coverage, only references are as part of a collection. GRuban (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, should be merged to the artist's bio. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How is this different from any of the other public sculptures on the List of public art in Milwaukee? --Theredproject (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGS not relevant.198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirin Oskooi

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Co-operative Residence Incorporated

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

Poorly sourced article about a housing cooperative whose only discernible notability claim is that it exists. The references here are two primary sources, a glancing namecheck of its existence in a blog entry about the general concept of cooperative living, and an article in the student newspaper of the university that this co-op serves -- which means that none of them are strong sources for the purposes of getting this over WP:GNG, because the ones that are substantively about the co-op aren't independent of it and the one that's independent of the co-op isn't substantively about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article in a newspaper, even a student newspaper, is a secondary source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one secondary source is not an automatic GNG pass or keep-clincher in and of itself. GNG requires multiple reliable sources, not just one, and GNG does put student media in the back seat as less carrying of notability than general market media is — a university student newspaper can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources, but it is not a bringer of GNG if it is the strongest source on offer. Bearcat (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One single student-newspaper as a source?

That's not stretching the requirements for notability; that's ripping them apart. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. There are 4 references cited in the article:
- Torontoist: Coverage of the subject is not in-depth
- Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto: Not a secondary resource
- The Varsity: Not sufficiently independent from the subject of the article
- Toronto Media Co-op: Not a reliable source (WP:UGC)

I was unable to find any additional reliable sources about the subject. Newslinger (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of the serious dearth of sources. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Towers

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

Article about a housing cooperative, not well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG. The only references here are an entry in the self-published "encyclopedia of our own history" of the university this was affiliated with, and a single newspaper article which I just searched for on ProQuest and found that it's a 200-word blurb -- which means that the substantive source isn't independent, and the independent source isn't substantive. Residential apartment buildings aren't automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a number of local mentions in a before search. I'm not sure they add up to WP:GNG but since it is or was the tallest building in Kingston (Emporis lists it as fourth) there's a chance the article could be sourced adequately, so I'm going to abstain on voting. SportingFlyer talk 07:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, while I did find a small smattering of purely local coverage in ProQuest beyond just the blurb that's been cited here, it definitely wasn't enough: it didn't expand beyond Kingston, it didn't support the addition of any genuine substance to this article beyond reverification of its existence, and it was vastly outnumbered by coverage of a different unrelated Princess Towers in a different Canadian city (and even combined, the two buildings still generated less than 60 hits total.) Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As an unrepentant agoniste for veracity, I plunged into this quest unblemished by prejudice, yet Wikinotability was, alas, nowhere to be found. Subject seems to fail the criteria for the notability of buildings, first of all: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. We're certainly missing those.

Secondly, if there was verifiable evidence of lasting or historical notability of the subject's social importance, as a co-op, sources would have similarly been identified. Weak asides only have.

Essaying to locate encyclopaedic interest beyond merely the notability requirements fails on verifiability's strict regime, again: We need independent sources and we do not have them. This article is built on sand. -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debipaksha (TV series)

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

Non-notable — F R ⁺ 07:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV, I see no reason to believe that a TV-series based on the notable work by a notable writer aired on the leading Bengali TV channel should not be sourceable to GNG, see also WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. But I see no attempts to do so prior to nomination, or any other meassures to follow policy. The nomination does not state why subject is not notable, giving the impression of a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE statement. Sam Sailor 07:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor - Can any reliable sources actually be found ? I did a google search but failed to find the needle — F R ⁺ 09:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me, Bengali is, if I'm not mistaken, your language, and it is not mine. I get ~50,000 hits on the Bengali title (alt. search added above), and if I just look at Gnews there should be plenty to start sourcing this article. We are here to buld an encyclopedia. Sam Sailor 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor--90% of the sources found are related to the actual meaning of the word দেবীপক্ষ (A particular division of days in during Durga Puja). Among the sources related to this serial, two are interviews and the rest are mostly WP:MILL coverage that almost every serial receives when it starts airing — F R ⁺ 11:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have the exact ratings of this show, but a show on a network that garners a viewership of over 360 million[8] (that's higher than ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox combined) is most certainly notable and it would be only willful ignorance to not believe there is extensive coverage in the Bengali language. Just a quick search brings up in-depth coverage from Kaler Kantho.[9][10] --Oakshade (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The assertions that there is significant coverage definitely lack substance; still, it has been three weeks and nobody but the nominator has advocated for deletion. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Art Wales

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

As the article states, David Art Wales is "best known" for creating Guru Adrian (whose Wikipedia page was merged with this one some years ago). He did this in the 1980s while working at Alan, the fanzine of the small Australian radio station Triple Jay — a magazine so obscure I cannot find any record of it at any Australian library.

Wales was then a host on the Australian TV show "Edge of the Wedge" which was cancelled after a few months. Apparently, some American studios expressed interest in making a TV show about Guru Adrian, but none ever did.

Since then, Wales has took part in several pranks and projects. It's hard to tell where the pranks end and the projects begin. Was "Nice Enterprises" a real business? Was his job at the bowling alley real? Did any else take part in Project Naughties? What is the point of the "Prudent Boozers"? And, moreover, who was Guru Adrian? Some of this seems to be puffery, like his girlfriend's burlesque show and his Toyota job. The article claims he launched Cinelan with Morgan Spurlock, but its website makes no mention of him. There is no evidence he influenced the term "noughties". Most of the sources come from a digitised scrapbook, which documents his exploits stretching back to when he was seven, which must have been compiled by Wales himself or someone close to him. And this article and the the old Guru Adrian article have the same feel. I don't think Wales is notable enough for Wikipedia. He was almost famous. He is mentioned at the Triple Jay article, and that is enough to cover his notability and that of his creation, Guru Adrian. Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has three issues. First, many of the sources are self-published reprints of actual published articles (via predigitalarchive.com). This is sub-optimal, as the article subject (presumably) is providing copies of the sources rather than the sources. To Quote WP:N, " Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article". We know via these copies of sources that enough sources to establish notability clearly do exist, so GNG is met and the subject is notable. The second issue is that the sources should be the original versions of the actual sources, and the third issue is that there seems to be some promotional editing going on here. But it certainly meets the criteria to be kept.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources establish notability? He has been mentioned in articles or interviewed multiple times for multiple reasons over 40 years. A lot of people are featured in the media occasionally, particularly if they are publicity-seeking, which Wales obviously is. I have been myself. Does that mean all of us, if we keep the clippings etc, become notable enough to have an article?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity-seeking is a non-issue. What matters is whether one got the publicity. If you look at the sources in the article they clearly establish in-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent publications. And yes, if you have enough clippings of media coverage about yours truly, you can have an article. In-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent publications is all it takes.96.127.242.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an untenable position. Many people have gleaned some publicity over 40 years of publicity-seeking (or whatever). The Sydney Morning Herald article from 1998, "A Job for the Guru" is the best source for establishing notability. But it introduces him by asking, "Minor eccentric or major talent"? and goes on to float the possibility that Guru Adrian will get an American TV deal. I don't think he's a major talent (or much of an eccentric) and I don't think there was a TV deal. The various sources don't together establish anything. They don't establish he's a notable artist. They establish he's a publicity seeker, who has perpetrated various jokes, hoaxes, publicity stunts, artworks etc since he was age 7. I'm not criticising him, and I wish him luck, but I don't think he belongs in an encyclopedia. And it doesn't seem that most people think that he does. No one has leapt in and said that Guru Adrian rocked their down under world. No one has produced new sources. We're left with an article based on a old scrapbook. What's the point?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very tenable position as it relies on our notability policy. Setting aside comments on his talent and whether he is a publicity-seeker (all artists are, btw!), the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources establish notability. The scrapbook argument does not wash as clearly it proves the exiistence of multiple reliable sources. You or I might not like his ilk, but he has been covered more than enough in RS to be notable.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating the same line without answering my points. Have you tried Googling Wales? Nothing shows up, except things he (or an associate) has put up. That's strange for a notable person.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add for clarification: I do not dislike Wales, or have anything against him. He seems amusing, but that's it...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is reasonably well-sourced, and as he received good coverage in the news media, he qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Hzh (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wu-Invasion Mixtape Series: World Edition Volume 1

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

No evidence of notability given nor found, fails WP:NMUSIC Hzh (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Hzh, I've never entered into a debate on Wikipedia, this will be a first. I disagree that this page should be deleted on the premise that it is relevant within the scope of Wu-Tang Clan, and it is notable. for instance the Australian edition was cover by the second biggest music magazine in Australia. this mixtape was just released. Also I have seen mixtapes and even albums with less references then this one, I was under the impressed that's a discog reference would suffice, I'm here to make wikipedia better and talk on a subject matter that I am very familiar with. Look forward to your responce. Passportgang (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple links for the Australian edition, can you guys give me an indication if these are still relevant, I've saved two of these links for another article i am writing. http://themusic.com.au/news/all/2018/01/19/perth-rapper-b-nasty-featured-on-gza-and-dj-symphonys-wu-invasion-mixtape-series-1516343075/ | http://xpressmag.com.au/b-nasty-getting-down-with-dj-symphony/ | https://www.cairnspost.com.au/entertainment/kuranda-hip-hop-mc-diggis-has-secured-honour-having-a-track-included-on-a-prestigious-wuinvasion-compilation/news-story/92545e987e2ea5bcd45f3be88075ec07 Passportgang (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs and MusicBrainz are simple listings and do not contribute to notability. Same for AllMusic and other sites if there is no review there. Discogs is also user generated, therefore it is not consider a reliable source per WP:RS. The Australian edition is a different album, and cannot be extended to this album. In any case, the Xpress magazine one is only a passing mention of the album where the artist talk about recording, and the Cairns Post one is also one where the artist talks about the recording. You can read more about the guideline on notability for albums and why some sources are not accepted at WP:NALBUMS. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No coverage from reliable sources. In fact, there is no indication that this is even an official release. The "Official website" external link in the article goes to DJ Symphony's home page, which links to a DatPiff page that doesn't even include a listing for Wu-Invasion Mixtape Series: World Edition Volume 1. Newslinger (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. And there won't be any independent sources for this, because the albums are only available through Wu Tang's website, AND the contributing artists pay to have their tracks included on the Wu Invasion albums. In short, it's a money-making exercise with the Wu Tang Clan's names on it for publicity purposes. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorowar Jhumko

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

No sustained coverage....Only one WP:MILLsource was found in ebela.in — F R ⁺ 06:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is difficult assessing notability for a TV soap aired in a non-English language because English speaking editors cannot search for it effectively. However I note that this series was on the air for fifteen months and had 420 episodes, so I think it was notable for its Bengali-speaking audience. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth- Just noting that I do actually live in Bengal and know the local Bengali language. I did a google search as well as a targeted search on certain well known newspapers. The only source I could find was this WP:MILL coverage (Almost all serials big or small get an article like this when they launch) — F R ⁺ 14:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Network television show on the extremely popular Zee Bangla network which has a viewership of almost 200 million [11] - more than NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox combined - it's hard to imagine why an article about any series on it would be considered for deletion. Just after a few seconds of searching I see ABP Ananda, Ebela and Kaler Kantho have recently done several video or written reports on this show [12][13][14]. --Oakshade (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet. Sandstein 09:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyundai Rotem EMU

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

Non-notable subject. No references. I couldn't find a good CSD criteria for it, so I'm sending it here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; a merge to SkyTrain rolling stock might be the best outcome. There's probably enough for a standalone article, but the current example is inferior to the main article. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content at SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet is much better, and the article being discussed here is unnecessary. PK T(alk) 10:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet, The content at SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet is actually much better than the article, Nothing to merge, This current article title is a plausible redirect so makes sense redirecting. –Davey2010^Talk 13:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet per Davey and PKT. Nightfury 07:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of monarchs of Wessex#House of Wessex family tree. Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eoppa of Wessex

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY/WP:NOTINHERITED. The sum total of what is known about him is a set of old pedigrees that say Ine had a brother Ingold, Eoppa Ingolding, Eafa Eopping, Eahlmund Eafing, Ecgberht Ealmunding. (Ine had brother Ingold, Eoppa was son of Ingold, Eafa was son of Eoppa, Ealmund was son of Eafa, Ecgberht son of Eahlmund). We don't know a single biographical fact - the birthdate given on the page is made up and everything else on the page is just genealogical context for someone about whom nothing can be said other than genealogical context and we know one thing he wasn't - he doesn't appear on the list of kings. The page for his father already redirects to Ine of Wessex and that of his son already redirects to Ecgberht, King of Wessex. Surely it takes more than knowing someone had a father and a son and wasn't a king to justify a page. I would suggest a Redirect to List of monarchs of Wessex#House of Wessex family tree, or perhaps to Ecgberht. Agricolae (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect This individual fails to meet the standards outlined in the general notability guideline. The article can only exist as a redirect to the House of Wessex family tree. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on non-notable people to connect how notable people are related. Mentioning Eoppa in another article might be worth while, but a free standing article is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to List of monarchs of Wessex#House of Wessex family tree. Whether he was or was not notable is impossible to determine, because we known absolutely nothing about him, except that he appears as a link in genealogies. This is better than deleting, as someone may search for the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to District. With appreciation for Eastmain's efforts, while this Afd is being closed as a merge (given Bearian's ambivalence with either choice), if any editor wishes to re-create this article with the references provided, there's no prejudice against that (and against an early re-nomination thereon) (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal utility district

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into District; pace the adding of refernces, but I'm not sure those sources are all realible, and do not indicate that the subject deserves a stand-alone article. They also do not suggest that a MUD is found outside of the US (or possibly even Texas). As such, the information, such as it is is, would sit quite neatly in the US section of the parent article, which already states that "There are several types of districts in the United States"—of which a MUD is just one—and even goes on to acknowledge that there are "many types of special-purpose districts with limited powers of local government. School districts are the most common, but other types of districts include...utility districts" (my emph.) So the merge target is ready and waiting for the couple of sentences that this would add. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for it to be merged as suggested. Rathfelder (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'm also find with a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a purely USA concept I think the article should say so. But I'm happy for the article to survive now it has references.Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there are sufficient sources for what it is, but I feel it fails WP:DICDEF (this is not helped by nature of the latter 2 sources). It would need some sourced content beyond the nature of what it is to avoid this problem. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge away onto "District." The remark about subject being no more than a dictionary entry is to the point. No independent notability beyond subject being a common term. -The Gnome (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is essentially only proposing a merge ("better off being a part of Barry Sadler's article"). I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The A Team (Barry Sadler song)

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

No long term significance over this song, better off being a part of Barry Sadler's article. JE98 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potion-making: Practice

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

Lack of notability TheLongTone (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I gave links. see page. Comment added by page creator DyPeMaP (talk · contribs) --(talk) 20:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment refactored by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

slight lean to keep There are reviews out there, though I don't have any idea as to how notable/authoritative the various sites are. If they are to be believed, the game is quite popular in Russia. I would agree that to be kept there needs to be some claim of notability in the article beyond a vague sketch of the rules. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – At this time. I understand that this is a Russian board game and may be notable in that country. However, I could not find any secondary – reliable – independent sources located on my search, as shown here [15]. If someone can produce the evidence I am more than willing to change my mind. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Forbes Russia has an article and a Russian site I don't know anything about but appears to be significant in Russia [16] ranks quite highly. My Russian is poor on a good day, so I'm not going to claim I fully understand the context of these reviews. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, [17] looks like a reasonable review in a source I don't recognize but appears to be large and be more than a blog (so appears to have editorial control). Hobit (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RX 100 Movie

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

fails WP:NFF the sources are the usual PR fluff for upcoming films Dom from Paris (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remagoxer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film released on 12 July 2018 and is currently in theaters. The other similar titles have wiki page formats 'RX100_(2018_film)'. Should I update existing page or create a new page with regular format? Nagarajubhu (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarajubhu (talk · contribs) can you please provide urls of any reviews of the film in the press or magazines etc, as that would determine whether it is notable and should be kept, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Msrinath (talk · contribs)There are reviews online and its Blockbuster movie regarding collections.

Keep as it has been given full reviews such as Times of India here and The Indian Express here and Deccan Chronicle here and others so passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews given by Atlantic306 - seems to satisfy standard film notability requirements. Dom from Paris, sorry to poke the nom, I was just wondering whether you still wanted to delete, but presumably on tweaked grounds if the film is out? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the reviews I'm fine with it staying but as there has been a delete !vote I can't withdraw. That said the pretty poor reviews should be added and the phrase "The film received highly positive reviews" obliterated from the lead!! Dom from Paris (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To call that delete a !vote is a travesty, but you are of course correct, but I thought it worth asking in any case so it wasn't "counted" in closure. I'll have a look at the article Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as well as taking out the worst of the non-NPOV, I've added a proper reception section with the three reviews given above, and taken out a couple of the more unnecessary trailor refs. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Kona Venkat#As producer Just Chilling (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Film Corporation

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

fails WP:NCORP and notably WP:CORPDEPTH Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability - despite being involved in the production of some well known movies, notability is not inherited and the company does not appear to be notable in its own right. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kona Venkat#As Producer - Googling the company finds several mentions in various publications, some mainstream pubs but mostly film-related. But, there are no in-depth profiles - just passing mentions of company-involved films, and they are mostly because of the involvement of Kona Venkat, so this doesn't meet the standards of WP:GNG as a standalone. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above. Blue Riband► 02:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo & Muna

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

fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG the coverage is not enough to pass notability criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as it is scheduled to be released on 27 July so if it gets reliable sources coverage such as full reviews it can be passed through AFC to mainspace, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and no evidence it's releasing on 27 July or anytime soon. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i have added some sources. That say it going to be released on 27 July. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.203.229 (talk)

and I have removed those sources you brought up because they're not reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fail's WP:NFILM. Spirits tell me I'm gonna be released any day now but nobody knows. -The Gnome (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Fjørtoft

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

fails WP:NFOOTY he has not played a game for the pro team and is not in the first team roster [18] and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:GNG, multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. I have no problems finding sufficient news coverage to meet WP:GNG: in addition to Duke and the Sounders, there are mentions alongside the New York Red Bulls U23s[19] as well as Planet Football and GoPlay Sports [20]. Additionally, due to his famous father, there has been (especially in Europe) curiosity and interest regarding his future football career, which in my humble opinion makes him more notable than the typical pro player who, as you correctly state, has not yet played a game - unless friendlies count? It says here that he made his debut for the Sounders back in February[21]. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangyanzixuan (talk • contribs) 18:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendlies don't count. Geschichte (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources and Once a metro is a fan site for a club he played for so not independent coverage, Planet football is an WP:INTERVIEW so a primary source and soundersfc is his club so affiliated and not useful to show he meets GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about this [22] one? It's from ProSoccer USA. Then there's [23], which I don't believe is affiliated. Also a few mentions in foreign sources, such as [24]. Agree with your points on the previous articles, though. Tangyanzixuan (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mind that the GNG asks for non-trivial coverage. It must be something more than a passing mention. Geschichte (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jan Åge Fjørtoft#Personal life, which already outlines his almost non-existent career so far, although sourcing it would be nice. As confirmed by article's creator above, he hasn't played a pro game yet, so fails sport-specific notability, and I can find no evidence of enough non-trivial coverage in WP:RS independent of the subject to pass WP:BIO. Again, as noted by creator above, much of what there is hangs on his father's notability: see WP:NOTINHERITED. Possible search term, so redirect. If he makes a competitive appearance for the Sounders, all we have to is undo the redirection. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. I understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and though it seems unlikely that he'll not ever make a Sounders appearance, as you said, all it would take would be to undo the redirection in the event that he does pass nfooty. There are more than a few pages that currently link to the page, and it would be nice to have somewhere to go to - even if just a redirect - rather than nothing. Still would prefer to have the page and hoping that the additional coverage passes GNG! Tangyanzixuan (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Admittedly fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG. Page creator has provided more sources, and I and other members of the football community have been aware of this young man's name for years independent of any Sounders association. The only reason he hasn't started professionally is because of MLS international roster slot rules, which while I understand is irrelevant to WP:NFOOTBALL is something that should be mentioned. It would be unfortunate to browse the pages that link to him and not be able to access more information, and as a user above states, he's a "possible search term." Again, coverage looks to be more than passing mentions to me. Cheers, Leeds 13:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.99.71 (talk) [reply]

Which sources in particular show he meets GNG as being indepth coverage in reliable secondary sources? Dom from Paris (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Notable father but notability is not inherited. -The Gnome (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment Already said my part above, but I'll rewrite the last bullet I did since I didn't get a follow up. Some sources I was looking at (for gng), but someone please check me:

What about this [25] one? It's from ProSoccer USA. Then there's [26] from MLS Multiplex, which I don't believe is affiliated. Also some mentions in foreign sources, such as [27]. My point is that there's significant coverage even when every article straight up covering a Duke game and nothing else (are there are a ton of those) is struck out. Tangyanzixuan (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of changing your Keep to a Comment: we aren't allowed to !vote more than once. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a vote! Thanks for changing that x Tangyanzixuan (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point you're missing is that none of these pages show any evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Routine coverage – man scores goal in warmup match, fanpage says man with new club will probably mainly play in the reserve team, man gets pro contract with a quote from his youth club about the virtues of hard work – doesn't establish general notability. We can find 100s of namechecks for 1000s of budding footballers, but that's why we have notability criteria: to weed out ones that haven't yet done anything worth writing about in an encyclopedia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I think I'll have to concede here. Can we still try for that redirect to Jan Åge Fjørtoft#Personal life? There's a connection there that to me would make sense to illustrate. Thanks, Tangyanzixuan (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league meaning he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, and the coverage he has received is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG (for football) as his mentions are only trivial. SportingFlyer talk 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirin Oskooi

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berke Özer

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

Fail WP:Footy as has no professional caps - TFF First League non-professional as per WP:FPL. Seems to be example of WP:TOOSOON. Ortizesp (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete played for Fenerbahce in their recent friendly against Lausanne Sport, which I had marked as a comment instead of a delete since I'm not entirely sure how we handle friendlies until I remembered Lausanne were relegated/second division. Possible draftify to keep the history of it somewhere? He could be notable very soon. SportingFlyer talk 04:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and no adequate referencing. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am ignorant of Turkish football - but a National team = notability (IMO)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Travel Corporation. Sandstein 09:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar Tours

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

Not independently notable. Mostly duplicates the parent company article The Travel Corporation Rathfelder (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a fairly well-known brand, apart from its corporate identity. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Could you possibly provide any references that meet the criteria for notability to support your statement that it is a "fairly well-known brand" since your opinion currently isn't based on any policies or guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Travel Corporation which owns it. The article can be incorporated as another division of the parent company. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 02:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to The Travel Corporation as suggested above. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Searches just turn up promotional posts failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flash! Found femur fragment fossil fails finalization! Film at eleffin!

PS, if somebody really wants to redirect this, I have no objection.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Washington theropod

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

Singular fossil fragment with no name, not even a nomen nudum. Singular fossils like this don't normally get articles and the similar article Australian Spinosaurid was merged into Spinosauridae on similar reasoning. Doesn't seem notable enough to merge into something such as theropod, though information from the study not mentioned in this article could be used for the Tyrannosauridae page.

Delete I'd say merge with Tyrannosauridae but the information contained in the article is, as you say, not notable for for inclusion there or in Theropod. Many discoveries on tyrannosaurids have been made over the years, being the first one in Washington doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in the Tyrannosauridae page, especially if it is only a partial femur with nothing significantly distinct about it. Probably not notable enough even for the Timeline of tyrannosaur research article. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It seems that this is just barely not notable, considering the fact that it hasn't actually been identified (or described if it is a different species), and the news coverage around it was released practically the same day the paper was. Thus, since we don't really have enough information on it to really tell readers anything meaningful (except that it came from Washington, but this can be put in another article), this page should be deleted. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 'Angloposeidon' has been around for ages and has never gotten Afd'd despite arguably being less notable than both the Washington state theropod (being the only dinosaur from the state) and the Australian Spinosaurid, for both Washington state theropod and Angloposeidon, given there indeterminate positions, there isn't really a place to easily redirect either article, particularly for the Washington state theropod as there is no formation article associated with it, given this, I think the article should be kept for now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angloposeidon is a nomen nudum, and there's plenty of stub articles on those kept around; it has precedence. Fragmentary specimens with no names, contrarily, almost never get articles within Wikiproject Dinosaurs (with Joan Wiffen's theropod the only thing that comes to mind). Merge potential is something I mentioned above; it's not important enough to put the information in a different article anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's noteworthy enough to merge the info and the image into Tyrannosauroidea Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even know that it's a member of Tyrannosauroidea. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz to quote the papers abstract (emphasis added) "If the femur pertains to a tyrannosauroid, which seems likely given its size and the widespread occurrence of the group across Laramidia during Late Cretaceous times, then it would represent an earlier occurrence of large body size than previously recognized (complete femur length estimated at 1.2 meters)". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to contest my statement, or support it? Because I think that it clearly supports my statement (again, we don't know for sure that it is a tyrannosauroid). I wouldn't be totally against its possible inclusion, as long as it is emphasized that we don't know for sure of its potential placement within the aforementioned clade. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindof both because yes we don't know for certain but also many things we don't know for certain and a "probably" works just as well for us as a "definitely". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename as noteworthy for being the first confirmed dinosaur from Washington state and for the depositional environment information, rename to the Burke Museum number as done with other notable single specimen fossils--Kev min § 00:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all that I pottered around a bit originally to fix it up - the combination of unnnamed, unidentified, and fragmentary/unexceptional material makes this a bad candidate for an article, even if it is the first from the (geographically arbitrary) region. If a new genus or higher taxon comes of this, one could make a better case. (Another similar production [28] - just because it's a name without an article does not mean there needs to be an article.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to a new fossil section in Geology of the Pacific Northwest, as suggested below, would seem sensible, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Delete/Merge Notability not evidenced for a single bone fragment fossil, could be mentioned at Tyrannosauroidea but if not even a species can be ascertained or assigned I don't see notability and the singular location does not provide that. Reywas92^Talk 00:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This could also be merged into Washington (state) or History of Washington (state). - Station1 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:OR, and WP:HAMMER. It's just too soon; it's not even named. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If your going to delete this then many other would have to do that same like the Joan Wiffen's theropod. Its ok due to the fact it is valid. And no we do not put it in the history of Washington.--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there's very few articles like this, that's why it's being suggested we delete this one. It's also not a valid taxon, it's not a taxon at all, it's merely an intermediate fragment. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg - why, for Heaven's sake, do you create something like North Carolina dromaeosaurid while this is going on? Exactly the same issues, to a T. I put it up for deletion as well. Sheesh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if that image is free for use, I'll eat my hat. For the how many-th time? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I think this article should be gone either way the content should move to Tyrannosauroidea probably but I see no reason why a redirect would be left as nothing should link here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear if it is a tyrannosaur also not much place for a redreict and the article should stay and to debunk elmide point of North Carolina dromaeosaurid I think i creted that just before I came to know about this. --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The single paper suggests it could be a tyrannosaur so that is enough to mention it in the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as the first dinosaur fossil from Washington state and on the basis of the article in an academic journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another good merging candidate to sidestep the uncertain classification of the specimen would be a new fossil section in Geology of the Pacific Northwest. It's certainly of some sort of relevance that it's the first dinosaur fossil from the state, but not to the point of its own article. This is a page where it could fit in without seeming out of place or irrelevant. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I think that if a merge is decided, then this is the article we should merge it to. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment The main reason for people voting to keep is that the article is "notable", but it is not notable enough. A single fossil that has been published is not notable even if it is the only from a place. Otherwise we would have articles for individual teeth from Scotland, other states, a single bone here or there, etc, that have no purpose being here on Wikipedia. A single paper does not even make this bone notable in the larger scale, what can be discussed here (location and taxonomy) is just as easily placed on the article about its taxonomy, where only the location is then notable. Perhaps it was wrong to bring this to AFD, instead a RFC or merge discussion would have been better. This article clearly goes against guidelines for the WikiProject it falls under and if the verdict here is a default keep due to no consensus I believe we will end up back here again rather soon to get a consensus, in one form of discussion or another. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

final verdict?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a very relevant discussion going on over at WT:DINO for anyone here who happens to not frequent the relevant WikiProject talk. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Especially being mindful to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments above, there's nothing here or at the article that would pass pass WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES or GNG. One can talk about due weight at other articles for mention, but I don't see any need to decided on a merge or redirect here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, love these sorts of afds, article less then 100 words (including references), afd over 1600 words:)), anyhow this seems to have made quite a media splash back in 2015 with articles in NBC News, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Time (magazine), KUOW-FM, The Seattle Times to list but a few, but is there anything else after that? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Kaplan Mulholland

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

Semi-advertorial WP:BLP, written and sourced differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content but still not sourced properly. This is following the "get the number of footnotes up as high as possible and hope nobody pays attention to the quality of them" approach to referencing (a thing we call notability bombing, and do not take kindly to) — of the 64 footnotes here, about 70 per cent of them are non-notability assisting primary sources and blogs and press releases and Q&A interviews in which she's the speaker and not the subject. Of the roughly 30 per cent that do actually represent media coverage, further, even a significant number of those are kneecapped by being internal corporate cross-promotion within the Corus Entertainment family rather than independent coverage, and still others just feature her giving soundbite in a story about something other than her, or being "covered" in the context of her wedding dress or her parenting tips for how to keep your kids from being spoiled brats. The number of sources here that actually represent indepentent WP:GNG-assisting reliable source coverage about her doing anything remotely relevant to a Wikipedia notability criterion is literally in the single digits, which is not enough coverage to excuse how bad the rest of the sourcing is.
And furthermore, this is a direct conflict of interest, as the article was created by a WP:SPA editor whose username corresponds to an employee of the public relations department of the article subject's company. As always, neither owning a company nor being a reality TV personality is an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced much, much better than this — and even if she can be properly sourced as notable, we are not a free publicity platform on which she's entitled to make her staff write an article about her. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto as a plausible redirect, but not much more; all of her other 'shows' on television flag as paid programming, suggesting a host for hire. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mrschimpf. --John (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [29][30][31], meets the requirements laid out on WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello is a gossip tabloid, not a reliable source, and both of the other two pieces you provided there are Q&A interviews in which she's speaking about herself rather than being objectively discussed in the third person (and one of those, further, is interviewing her in the context of her taste in interior design, not in the context of anything remotely relevant to whether she would qualify for an encyclopedia article or not.) Which means that exactly zero of those three links assist "the requirements laid out on GNG" at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello doesn't make things up, as far as I can tell, unlike some supermarket tabloids. I think it has enough independence from the people it writes about to be considered, in general, a reliable source. The text in the first part of the Hello article before the Q-and-A transcript can be used to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our reliable sourcing rules explicitly prohibit that kind of tabloid publication from being a reliable or notability assisting source, period — they don't differentiate between "tabloids that make stuff up" vs. "tabloids that don't make stuff up". There are people who believe what they see in Weekly World News, for instance (fake news is not actually a new thing!) — so even that distinction would lead to constant editwarring over which class of tabloid any given gossip sheet belonged to. The entire class of publication is simply deprecated as not notability-assisting or reliable at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but would you like to link the discussions where all these sources were rejected as unreliable? I don't see them as biased. They seem pretty sensible for fulfilling the standards of WP:RS. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many good articles started out quote weak. This article has had the attention of many editors other than its creator, and now seems reasonably neutral. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. Not independently notable; promotionalism only. Sources are passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent on the show. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough about her role at iFinance Canada that I slightly prefer to keep over a redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. There's a carpet-bomb of references. I looked in detail at the references in the lede, on the assumption that they're the best. None of them convinced me this comes anywhere close to meeting WP:BIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto where this individual's limited notability lies. Thre is just not enough INDEPTH to pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes lean heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFF and speculation about what a nonexistent SNG for handballers would say. The existing notability criteria for sportspeople are arbitrary enough; let's not start imagining new ones. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Grimholt

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

Not sufficiently notable competitor of a predominantly amateur sport. Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to establish notability in a search for reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I have no idea how you can say handball is an amateur sport. It's the second biggest team sport in Europe by the way. But I agree that three is not a big relevance for the article. But there is a small notability because she played at the EHF Cup Winners' Cup which was the third most importance club competition in Europe.--Malo95 (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be professional in Denmark, Germany, France, Spain and some Eastern European countries. But not in Norway and most other countries, and especially not for women. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She have played several matches in Norways highest professional handball league Eliteserien (altomfootball.no). Isn't that good enough? --Trade (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not professional, not even close. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-biographies like this do no one any good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment non-biographies? Trade (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need to discuss the rules when it comes to the notability for handball players. Despite the large amount of biographies WP:ATHLETE does not mention anything about handball. --Trade (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer I twice tried to make a guideline but nobody answered to me. So I gave it up. --Malo95 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Criteria WP:SPORTBASIC sets out some basic criteria that seem to lie somewhere between WP:GNG and WP:NORG in severity, the key component is requiring multiple sources instead of usually requiring them. It also suggests likely criteria that would indicate notability, but in lieu of specific sport rules, they are just that - suggestions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the guidelines suggested by Malo95? --Trade (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, but as someone who knows little about the sport I can't say if anything obvious is missing Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was a frequent winner of the national cup and participant in the EHF Cup Winners' Cup. A former international in Norway's U21. No shortage of WP:SIGCOV either. gidonb (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria Again - Malo95 I assume there are probably some semi-professional leagues, perhaps some intermediate point for them, such as won tournament or some variant? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As i've said before, Grimholt have played dozens of matches in Eliteserien. But for some reason, Geschichte doesn't think it that counts. --Trade (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources consist of links to pages of individual statistics and two articles mentioning her moving from her team in Norway to one in Spain. Hard to say that constitutes sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. As for WP:NSPORT, the basic criteria for any sport is playing at the highest level. Since she has never competed at a world championship or Olympics, this standard is not met. In fact, she has never played for the Norwegian national adult women's team and success as a junior is usually not considered sufficient for notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is very aggressive reading of the basic criteria - they actually note that those who have performed at the highest level are likely to meet the notability criteria. That does not give a strict rule to the opposite Nosebagbear (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say my interpretation is reasonable (and typical), not aggressive. My point is that she doesn't meet the SNG for sportspeople. That doesn't mean she can't be notable, it just means that WP:GNG is the criteria she needs to meet. I don't think articles about her changing teams are enough to do that. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local/regional coverage about her single season for Spanish BM Remudas, little coverage about her years in Gjerpen IF. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, which is what WP:SPORTBASIC roughly translates to. Sam Sailor 16:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Papaursa, we already have dozens if not hundreds of handball biographies like this one. It doesn't make any sense to single this particular person out. --Trade (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this article. The relevant issue is whether or not this person meets any notability criteria and she doesn't appear to. None of the keep votes have shown evidence of a valid reason for keeping this article. If you don't want her singled out, feel free to nominate the other handball biographies you believe are equivalent. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TechNet (lobbying organization)

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

I'm not seeing enough out there to qualify this for WP:NCORP. I'm seeing a lot of single mentions on other company pages saying things along the lines of "TechNet was involved in this company's lobbying efforts" but beyond that not really a whole lot. Majora (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Just a corporate PR release. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep but this'll need some serious work. I took a look at HighBeam Research while doing my WP:BEFORE for this article, and found quite a bit about TechNet, specifying about the political organization. It looked to be more than just "they got this or that" as I went through the sources, and in my opinion there appears to be enough there to establish notability. That being said, this article may need some WP:TNT in order to get it right, so I have no prejudice against deletion and recreation at a later time by someone interested in writing about the subject properly. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject failing WP:NCORP. The sources are either primary (press releases, etc), news about the tech industry in general, or a tidbit about a managerial appointment. There is no verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Elizabeth Watkins Oliver

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

Notability - this is a family history - not Wikipedia worthyTiptopper (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being listed in a state-wide biographical dictionary such as "Marie Watkins Oliver - Historic Missourians - The State Historical Society of Missouri". or Christensen, Lawrence O. (1999). Dictionary of Missouri Biography. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. p. 584. is an indication of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the article as it stands now needs to be pared down, there is much fluff. But this woman is covered in many books and appears on several lists of notable women. Tag the article for improvement, but don't delete. --Krelnik (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, in-depth entries in widely held books such as Dictionary of Missouri Biography (1150 libraries), and Hardship and Hope (1280 libraries). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Marie Watkins Oliver, the form of name used in the "Historic Missourians" source which shows her notability. (But don't move till the AfD is over as it complicates things) PamD 08:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And note that she appears in the Missouri Wall of Fame, albeit as "Marie Elizabeth Oliver" - found after I created a few incoming redirects for her and then did a "what links here". PamD 08:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep also agree with [User:PamD|PamD]] that move would be good. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Marie Watkins Oliver. Clearly passes GNG - seems designed a state flag generates coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Hayman30 (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trench (album)

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

There is not enough information to sustain am album article. The information in the article is about awards won by the previous album. No track listing. No studio name(s). No musicians. No producer(s). No audio engineer(s). No mixer(s). While WP:HAMMERTIME is only an essay, it applies. I'd also be fine with a locked redirect to keep the fans from creating a trivial article. I'd also be fine with a block for any editor who reverted the redirect if it lasts until the album is released. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM and several other sensible guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With misinformation abounding, just one more reason to delete (or redirect) with a lock. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of pathetic to want to delete a page for an album we lack information on when there are other pages just like it (example: The 1975's next album A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships, which similarly lacks a known track listing, producers, etc.). Just saying, my guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.36.78 (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why? It is a notable album, by a notable duo. Instead of blocking people ho created this article, in good faith, and deleting the article, we should keep it and let people improve the page. We are going to need to create an article for this eventually. It has plenty of background info, especially for an album that was just announced yesterday. Also, I hope you don't mean that I should be blocked. I just recreated the page, with more sources, and when it was redirected, I didn't revert the redirect. Bowling is life (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a notable album as there's are no sources about the album itself. We are going to need to create an article for it but now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll step back from that comment and allow @Bowling is life: explain exactly which notability criteria the album currently meets. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Walter Görlitz: Well, WP:GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Google "Twenty One Pilots" or "Twenty One Pilots Trench" and you will see plenty of sources talking about this album. Since the album is getting significant media coverage and it is by a notable group, the article should be kept. Bowling is life (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - But that's the point, it's not getting significant coverage yet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Simple Google search: Billboard, Kerrang, Spin, Alternative Press, New York Times, Rock Sound, and Daily mail. That is not even close to all of the reliable sources tlking about this album. How is that not significant coverage? Bowling is life (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        That certainly is a lot of fluff, but I'm not going to be able to convince true fanatics that their band's album isn't notable so I'll make you a deal, I'll withdraw the nomination and I'll stop watching all of the band's articles to remove vandalism or you admit that there isn't enough information about the album itself to merit an album now (which is undeniable). Let me know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not a crazy TOP fan, don't associate me with their crazy fan base. I am just here to help. I'll work on the article as much as soon. We have a deal. Bowling is life (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd say it's pretty silly to continuously delete this album article, it currently has many notable sources and will obviously be built upon over time. Coda16 04:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- What's silly is to continuously create an article without sources for a subject that fails any notability criteria, and to fill that article with information unrelated to it and claim that this information somehow makes the album notable. All the information in the article is in the band's bigoraphy article so no redirect is required anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stepping back here and asking @EthanRossie2000: to indicate which of the sources actually discuss the album. I don't disagree that there are many sources in the article, but they discuss information about the band and the previous album, not this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per arguments above. DovahDuck (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But the arguments above are all invalid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. DovahDuck (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2018

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination because there is no guideline or policy that can show notability but I won't be heard by admins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just let the article snowball. And in the future, please consider redirecting pages that serve a purpose instead of nominating for deletion, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Terminator (Stevie B album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, as tagged since June 2010. Independent reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The only news article I can find from a reliable source that mentions this album focuses on an arrest, and the album is only mentioned briefly in one sentence. The album did not receive critical attention or appear on any major music chart. Newslinger (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. I assume the news source mentioned by the editor above is this one from the Daily Mail [32] which is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia standards... and in any case, the article is nothing to do with the album. A redirect to Stevie B might be possible but obviously the Schwarzenegger films will be the main search term for The Terminator. Richard3120 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some of Stevie B's other albums have achieved notability but this one has not. I can find no reliable reviews, not even at AllMusic. The collaboration with Pitbull can be mentioned at Stevie B's main article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I found 2 newspaper sources mentioning the album in passing - predictably one of them being for the Pitbull/Stevie B single. Look let's be honest a comeback album by a 90s artist which fails to make a dent is not a great event, but it doesn't benefit the reader in any way at all to nuke or blank this kind of series article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow discussion of added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Stevie B. Vorbee (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete No significant coverage, no chart entries, therefore no notability for the album. It is also not worth merging since it is mostly track listing, and track listing is not normally given in artist's article. I should also say that I don't mind it being deleted because as noted by Richard3120 people would more likely be looking for the film when searching the title, and this non-notable title would simply clutters the search. Hzh (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to delete for the reason stated above. What useful information there is has been added to the Stevie B article. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruchey

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

Non-notable mayor who only received coverage in reliable sources for calling London's mayor a "terrorist". Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has been Mayor of Hagerstown (which ranks as Maryland's sixth largest incorporated city) multiple times; also commonly "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar [for notability] if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btyner (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The politician received brief coverage for one event, and the event (a social media post) wouldn't even warrant its own Wikipedia article. At this time, this person is not notable enough to clear WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL. Newslinger (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor of Annapolis, Maryland merits an article, and Annapolis is smaller than Hagerstown. Therefore, even in the absence of media coverage, the mayor of Hagerstown should be at least as notable as the mayor of Annapolis; News coverage does not decrease notability. If this article had been created a week ago, there would likely be no debate as to notability. Btyner (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability criteria for mayors is not based on an arbitrary population cutoff — it's based on whether the sources enable us to write a substantive article (as opposed to just "he is a mayor who said something stupid once, the end".) Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because an article exists about somebody else doesn't mean it necessarily should — so the existence of any article is not prima facie evidence in favour of or against the includability of any other article. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single WP:BLP1E article about a mayor saying a dumb thing is not, in and of itself, enough coverage to get him over WP:NPOL #2. If the article were sourced well enough to be genuinely substantive, that would be a different story — but this, as written, is not enough to make him includable. Our inclusion test for mayors is based on the sourcing, not the city's population. If somebody wants to nominate Gavin Buckley in response to Btyner's misguided OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, then I'd happily vote to delete there as well, because he's not sourced well enough either. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors do not automatically get a notability waiver even where they serve a city with a substantial population, and here there's only one source and that source has WP:BLP1E concerns. Clear delete. SportingFlyer talk 21:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed (commented out) the section/reference with BLP1E concerns, added a different reference (the official website) and tagged it as a stub. Better? Btyner (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official website is a primary source, so no, it doesn't help for notability reasons - and I don't see any sources which might help save him from a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer talk 05:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors do not get automatically notability in cities this size, and the article itself provides undue weight to a minor post written on facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruchey

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

Non-notable mayor who only received coverage in reliable sources for calling London's mayor a "terrorist". Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has been Mayor of Hagerstown (which ranks as Maryland's sixth largest incorporated city) multiple times; also commonly "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar [for notability] if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btyner (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The politician received brief coverage for one event, and the event (a social media post) wouldn't even warrant its own Wikipedia article. At this time, this person is not notable enough to clear WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL. Newslinger (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor of Annapolis, Maryland merits an article, and Annapolis is smaller than Hagerstown. Therefore, even in the absence of media coverage, the mayor of Hagerstown should be at least as notable as the mayor of Annapolis; News coverage does not decrease notability. If this article had been created a week ago, there would likely be no debate as to notability. Btyner (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability criteria for mayors is not based on an arbitrary population cutoff — it's based on whether the sources enable us to write a substantive article (as opposed to just "he is a mayor who said something stupid once, the end".) Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because an article exists about somebody else doesn't mean it necessarily should — so the existence of any article is not prima facie evidence in favour of or against the includability of any other article. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single WP:BLP1E article about a mayor saying a dumb thing is not, in and of itself, enough coverage to get him over WP:NPOL #2. If the article were sourced well enough to be genuinely substantive, that would be a different story — but this, as written, is not enough to make him includable. Our inclusion test for mayors is based on the sourcing, not the city's population. If somebody wants to nominate Gavin Buckley in response to Btyner's misguided OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, then I'd happily vote to delete there as well, because he's not sourced well enough either. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors do not automatically get a notability waiver even where they serve a city with a substantial population, and here there's only one source and that source has WP:BLP1E concerns. Clear delete. SportingFlyer talk 21:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed (commented out) the section/reference with BLP1E concerns, added a different reference (the official website) and tagged it as a stub. Better? Btyner (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official website is a primary source, so no, it doesn't help for notability reasons - and I don't see any sources which might help save him from a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer talk 05:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors do not get automatically notability in cities this size, and the article itself provides undue weight to a minor post written on facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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