< 9 April	11 April >

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shi chao niu he[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTRECIPE — IVORK _Discuss 23:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed WP:NOTRECIPE Acnetj (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed WP:NOTRECIPE applies Lyndaship (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree - per WP:NOTRECIPE, all this article is. Perhaps creartor can move it to the Wikibooks Cookbok? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electropoint (Music producer)[edit]

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

After being declined several times at AFC, article was simply moved into mainspace. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Yet another SPA recreating an article on Electropoint AKA Electropoint (music producer) AKA Roman Molino Dunn. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry about missing that duffbeerforme - should have speedied it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Raney[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Promotional vanity article. John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Is this where I discuss the pages content? I am new to Wikipedia and am still trying to figure out how/where discussions are held.

This is where you vote on whether this page should be deleted or not, as per our notability guidelines. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - upon further reflection, I've nominated this for speedy delete G11. This is nothing but an advatorial. John from Idegon (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolton Wanderers F.C.–Wigan Athletic F.C. rivalry[edit]

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

There's very little strong evidence that this fixture is a serious rivalry. I googled "bolton wigan rivalry" and there's this from Bolton's local newspaper: [1]. The title "Why the Whites’ REAL derby is a hard one to fathom" doesn't give me much hope that this is a big deal, nor does the text "Wigan Athletic are relative newcomers to the Football League scene and didn’t play Wanderers in a competitive fixture until 1983. It has taken some time for that game to really spark – but the two neighbouring towns now share enough common ground, in my view at least, to be considered rivals". Now let's look at this Bolton page on SB Nation: "On paper, this seems like the natural choice. Neither has a "natural" rival. The towns border one another. Younger fans may see Wigan as their rival, as they've only been punching at our weight for 10 years or so. But those days are gone. Wigan are back in the lower ebbs of the football league, never to be seen again. Thanks for your efforts Latics, but you fell just short. Never mind, lads". That too doesn't give me much confidence in the notabilty of this fixture, you'd certainly never here Preston and Blackpool or Burnley and Blackburn say that about each other. Now let's look at this Guardian article from 2011, when both clubs were in the Premier League: "Wigan like to look upwards to Bolton, though Bolton supporters are reluctant to look downwards and take the bait. Parts of Wigan are very close to Bolton, indeed the Reebok Stadium is handier for many Wigan supporters than Boltonians, and because there was no league team in Wigan until the 70s plenty of people who live in Wigan support Bolton. Plenty of others support Manchester or Merseyside teams, too – it is one reason why the DW Stadium is rarely filled to capacity – but Wigan's late arrival into the professional ranks means most prospective partners for rivalry have already been booked". All of these sources make it clear that any rivalry was brief, gone now, and of a low and one-sided intensity when it existed. Being close to each other doesn't make teams rivals. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable rivalry. Giant Snowman 10:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article should be a subsection on Bolton wanderers F.C. and Wigan athletic F.C. and not it’s own article. May I add it’s not even a big rivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daps166 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NRIVALRY. The fact that teams have played each over a number of times and are geographically close is not a de facto indication of a rivalry. No indication that the rivalry as a subject itself has received sufficient significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this is considered a significant rivalry. Of the two "controversies" listed, the fact that one occurred during a meeting of these two teams is a total coincidence of dates and not in any way an indication of a rivalry or anything else -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billboarding[edit]

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

Unsourced and largely unchanged since 2003 (!). I can't find any references that use this term, and only a few minor references to billboard sabotage in general [2] or Abbey's promotion of it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billboard hacking, which has a lot more sources and stronger examples than 'I remember in 1950 when this happened in ABQ'. Some merging of info (what little there is) can also be considered. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in line with Nate. As well as there being almost nothing to this article it verges on the incomprehensible. It doesn't add anything new to billboard hacking with covers all mentioned areas, so quality-aside, there is no reason for a merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It add little to the billboard hacking article. Tagged as unsourced since 2009! Edison (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this completely unsourced article as per nom. DO NOT REDIRECT. A Proquest news archive search on this term turns up copious usage of the word "billboarding." It most commonly seems to mean promoting, as in: " As might be expected, public television is billboarding Milton Berle's appearance...". Search also produces this use "a specific newspaper report being sponsored by a self-interested advertiser might seem odd, but advertisers increasingly are sponsoring specific segments of local television news broadcasts in a practice known as 'billboarding.'" But no hits in the first several pages of the search on a usage resembling billboard hacking. Typical sentences found in that search :"Even through education, with adverts billboarding the tobacco industry's campaigning for its survival how can we manage to fight such an aggressive advertising campaign?;" "a current inventory of six balloons and five pilots... serving commercial accounts with promotional or billboarding flights."; "distilling and billboarding the city's essence as he saw it...": "loosely enough to allow extensive billboarding on most of the US' highways". A REDIRECT will MISDIRECT our users because although billboard hacking]] is a real thing. the world "billboarding" means many things (book searches also show use in computer programming) , this word is not in general use to mean "billboard hacking." E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socialtechnical[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. No refs, no real hits on google. This appears to be an essay or perhaps a neologism. Yilloslime (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tee Morris[edit]

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

Not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia - suspect page is promotional in nature Poetnerd (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Looks COI Lyndaship (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. F. Kidd[edit]

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

Stub article without sources, hasn't been improved but was created in 2006, don't think subject is notable enough for an article Poetnerd (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepth independent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if the best news item to be found on her is a curry recipe, then you have to wonder if this person is noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shishir Srivastava[edit]

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

I'm unable to find coverage that demonstrates WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR is met. The claim to have written a bestseller seems to be unverifiable. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The mentions in the article that might demonstrate notability are completely unsourced, and per nom, I can't find any sources that back up the claims made in the article. In fairness, I can't read Hindi so there may be more sources available than I can access. Overall, this seems to be an over-inflated CV with some very promotional language. ("[H]e decided to leave Indian Navy and dedicate himself to serve the world" .... what?) Marianna251TALK 22:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amirhossein Jeddi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested with no reason given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY, GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Yet to see any pro match played so far. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G3 - vandalism/hoax. Article creator Ying-Meng Lin was abusing multiple accounts and has been indefinitely blocked. (non-admin closure) -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 13:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Ying-meng[edit]

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

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

1. She is politician. 2. She is member of NPP party. 3. She is council member (councillor). That's all that this stub article contain. None of these meet WP:NPOL and doesn't have significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. This is non notable local politician. Her colleagues, the council members are 63 in number, virtually all non notable. The article is also currently undergoing deletion discussion on on Chinese Wikipedia too, they are all created recently possibly to boost poitical image.–Ammarpad (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both (the second of which I have added myself). City councillors are not automatically notable, like members of a national chamber are. The speaker and deputy speaker of this council do not seem to have articles so it seems unlikely that membership confers much notability. Of course, the subjects could be notable for other reasons, but there is noting to suggest that this is the case here. Also, the first article seems to be an autobiography and the second article an attempt by the same author at promoting a party colleague. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. To be fair, Taipei is a large and internationally prominent enough city that a well-written and well-sourced article about a city councillor might very well be kept, but that's not what either of these articles are — both are brief stubs which do little more than state that these councillors exist, and source the fact of their existence to one (Lin) or two (Wu) glancing namechecks of their existence in articles about other things. That is not what it takes to make a city councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article — even in that rarefied class of cities where we do grant city councillors a presumption of notability, a councillor's article still has to have more sourcing and substance than this before it actually becomes invulnerable to deletion. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both city council members are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dreikurs theory for classroom management[edit]

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

This isn't an encyclopedic article, but a teacher's own plan based on a theory. (From the lead " But without further ado, I will briefly explain the rules I will have in my classroom and then jump into an exploration of what Dreikurs' theory can be used in the classroom.") Natureium (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A11. Nanophosis (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A11 applies to ideas that the page creator made up, whereas this appears to have been thought up by some other person named Dreikurs who is cited as a reference. Natureium (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. samee converse 21:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Random unvetted theory. There should be CSD criterion for this. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a personal reflection by someone who is apparently a student doing his classroom teaching requirement. Language such as " This quote sums up why I am, at least for the purposes of this article, taking a stance and subscribing to a single theory of dealing with problem behaviors. I generally believe that ...." is unencyclopedic. (That said, there is nothing wrong with the advice.) Edison (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Ellsworth[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: May be the creator failed to add notable references. I have added three more. Seems notable enough now. Blazing Sceptile (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three references is not enough to make a person notable just for being an as yet unselected candidate in a party primary. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, 2018. Candidates for election do not meet WP:NPOL, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, as the campaign is notable, even if a particular candidate is not. --Enos733 (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates are not notable under WP:POLITICIAN unless they fall under the broader WP:GNG guideline, and she does not appear to. SportingFlyer talk 02:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an as yet unelected candidate in an upcoming political primary is not a notability claim that gets somebody into Wikipedia in and of itself — and simply showing a couple of media sources for her candidacy announcement is not an automatic WP:GNG pass either, because every candidate in any election could always show that. Rather, there are only two ways to make a political candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article: (a) the election is over and she won it, or (b) she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides her candidacy. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins, but neither the sourcing nor the substance on offer here already get her a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates need to receive much higher than expected coverage to show notability. A major party nominee for governor may meet this threshold. A never-before holding public office lawyer who is one of multiple candidates in a primary for the governors election clearly does not. If Ellsworth wins the primary, she may be notable, if she wins the general election she clearly will be, she is not at this time in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Number 5 7 13:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, 2018. She is not as of yet notable, but there is the future and is right now a potential search term. The gubernatorial election page can have some biographical information on her. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Strangler[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG with no coverage. Also does not pass WP:NFILMS. KingAndGod 18:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film was widely distributed in its time under various titles and was recently broadcast on Turner Classic Movies as part of a themed night of crime films, as noted by host Ben Mankiewicz. It is documented at IMDB.com and the TCM database and is listed at the Rotten Tomatoes film review site and is commercially available at Amazon.com (with six customer reviews). Numerous clips from the film are posted to YouTube. It features a noted performer, Micky Dolenz, shortly after the height of his career. There is plentiful discussion of the film on the Internet at film blogs (and many images, particularly of its contemporary promotion) and I was surprised to find no page here as yet after seeing it broadcast as most similar exploitation films I've looked up seem to have entries.

TCM's article can be seen here:

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/1389818%7C0/TCM-Underground-in-April.html

Joe Suggs (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is light in internet-accessible sources, but sources do exist (as is generally the case for films that get a legitimate theatrical release). I don't typically work much with films beyond the silent era, ~~but I'll see if I can't at least tidy this one up a little.~~ Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was easier than I expected. The article has been cleaned up and sourced. Besides being a vehicle for Dolenz, it was the film debut for two other notable actors, and has received at least brief mention in an academic film history work as part of the early 1970s trend towards blaxploitation films. It is virtually certain that other contemporary sources exist, especially period reviews, although I'm less skilled at finding 1970s periodical sources than 1920s ones (and the litany of titles here makes searching noisome). In any case, the most widely-distributed prints now are all under the title The Night of the Strangler, and so this article should be moved to that title, but I'll wait to do so until after the AFD closes (assuming this closes Keep). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had given up on this as couldn't find much but the above editor has found a number of reliable sources such as reliable book coverage and they have used them to make a big expansion and improvement of the article raising it from a stub to at least start class if not C class and they have demonstrated that it passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bartova-Lobanova, Alisa Aleksandrovna[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. This article has been created by a WP:SPA, all the sources are WP:INTERVIEWs with the exception of 1 press release so none are sufficent to show notability. This looks very much like failing WP:NOTSOAPBOX Dom from Paris (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not establish notability. Nauseating soapbox quotes scrapped.104.163.158.37 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. samee converse 12:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, doesn't meet notability criteria. London Hall (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors can't agree and there is no appetite for further discussion. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syneos Health[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement the point of which is to abuse WP for visibility. Sources are all press releases/churnalism/SPS. SPeedy was declined with a basis that "long-term article & not irredeemably promotional; suggest AfD". All I can say is yes - barrels of industrial waste do get dumped into national forests and not found until years later. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a short factul listing. This is not some corner store looking for a free listing, it's a 14,000 employee company. Reality is company info is made available via press releases and websites. It is also NASDAQ WP:LISTED which needs to be in the article text (I added it). Here is a round up of third party coverage [3]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A atock watchers blog? really? And WP is not a directory - if there are not sufficient independent sources with signficant discussion so that we we can write an encyclopedia article, the page should not exist. Surprising !vote to me. Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stockwatcher blog shows that the listed company has analysts following it which means there is definately regular independent coverage available. Call me old fashioned but I believe large companies that employ people and make stuff and that people's pensions are invested in are a lot more notable than housewives who were once pageant queens who won a contest of looks and east german handball players who played in the Olympics once but we can barely source their names. I'm as anti spam as anyone but this is a short factual listing with sources. Sure it can be improved, but the company is clearly notable. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call me old fashioned but industrial pollution is not any less pollution based on who dumps it into WP - there is no difference in the abuse if it is a beauty pageant queen or a company that employs lots of people or Mother Teresa. We are not a vehicle for giving more visibility to anything or anyone and we are not a directory. There is nothing to learn from in this page. Wikidata is fine with directory entries; they want to include every factoid in the world over there. That is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a serious hospital in Massachusetts, and there seems to be no reason for deletion of this page. UserTalk: DanTheMagicalMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthemagicalman (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That !vote has nothing to do with NCORP or N generally. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dhupguri#Education. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dakshin Khayer Bari High School (X)[edit]

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

A non-notable high school with zero coverage in reliable sources. This could have been an A1 or A7, but schools aren't usually eligible for CSD, so AfD it is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Dakshin Khayer Bari High School" as Draft, redirect to Dhupguri#Education where the article was spun off. No sources presented. X is not a proper disambiguator. It was mainly so that it indicates it starts at the equivalent of 10th grade, or perhaps that it is a regular X school and not a 10+2? Hard to tell. But it's not part of the school's name. So (X) should be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice: WP:NSCHOOL which says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For profit educational organizations and institutions are considered Commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)" WP:ORGCRIT: "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Only source presented: Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation: Significant coverage: No (just a listing of the school), Independent: Yes (government), Reliable: Yes (government), Secondary: Yes (government), Pass: 0 (Fail, can't count toward ORGCRIT). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs renaming but here's an Indian government source verifying the "sr. secondary" school's existence and location (entry 64). Again (1, 2), took me a matter of minutes to find. Please all, let's heed WP:BEFORE. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has the same problem as the other nom. The source is but an entry in the government list, so that's a reason to redirect it to the related list. It is not significant coverage of the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Okay, there is proof that the school actually exists. But conform the RFC on Schooloutcomes that is not enough any more. There must be proof that the school is notable. The Banner talk 12:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The source indicated by Innisfree987 shows it's a verified secondary school. Having to flesh out he notability of every secondary school in the world is a bad path for WP to go down.--Oakshade (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – The fact that it can be shown to exist doesn't make it notable in and of itself, it needs significant coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources. That is blatantly not the case.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 05:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhupguri#Education.Exists but no coverage in sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and redirect, per AngusWOOF's argument. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qorikuxaar[edit]

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

Somali "town" which doesn't exist. The one source cited says it's actually a valley and not a populated place. No trace of settlement on satellite imagery and no sources to satisfy WP:NGEO (unless you count a couple of forum posts about what a weird name it is). Hut 8.5 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-existent town. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Hut 8.5 is right that this seems to be a valley rather than a town, which is a quick fix in the present wikitext. We should really be !voting on the notability of the valley, as that can at least meet WP:V based on the cited source alone. But WP:NGEO states that for a geographic feature can be considered notable only if "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist," which isn't true in this case. However, if anyone can locate any sources on the valley, the article should be kept - regardless of whether the town exists or not. MarginalCost (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to point out that Cebuano Wikipedia seems (to someone who had never knowingly met the language before) to have a better (and more accurate) article on this topic than we do here - written by a bot. The sources given are all English-language ones, which I think I would trust for verifiability if notability was otherwise established. However, what I can't tell for certain is whether the Cebuano article gives anything beyond statistical-level data - if it does, then WP:NGEO would be established, but I suspect that it does not. PWilkinson (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that all the bot has done is used the geographical coordinates of the subject to look up climate data for it and added that to the article. I can't see anything there which goes beyond statistical data and location. That article also says that it's a valley and not a town, according to Google Translate. WP:NGEO is very generous to populated places but in the case of a valley we need sources that give a significant information of verifiable information about it. Hut 8.5 22:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm extending the conversation in order to give time to weigh the notability of the valley. If no further discussion ensues I encourage the next reviewer to close as "delete" without further extension.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is one sentence and one picture, basically. And no sources. That can never prove notability by itself. This article should be deleted, but if there is any hope for the English Wikipedia viability of the article's subject matter, then maybe it should be moved to a draft space. I find it noteworthy that PWilkinson pointed out the Cebuano counterpart of this article, because that is a better example for an article than this English one. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GetApp[edit]

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

No substantial coverage in unrelated reliable sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Razer(talk) 08:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Author made additional citations of substantial coverage, detailed on talk page. Madeline(talk) 04:13, 4 April 2018 (CST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. WP:NOPROMO Acnetj (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Al Maktoum[edit]

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

Is this for real? I don't think Sheikh Hamdan is even married yet.. Google search does not yield anything about this lady. I believe A7 applies here but I prefer to AfD it and see if anyone can find anything in Arabic sources? Saqib (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no indication that Hamdam is engaged, let alone to this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LERA Consulting Structural Engineers[edit]

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

Article is increasingly turning into an advert about this engineering company. The "1923" date is unlikely, because Leslie E. Robertson was born in 1928 and his article says he founded his business in 1982. There's little other than passing mentions here in industry publications, certainly nowhere near enough to convince me the subject passes WP:NCORP. Engineering advisors are unlikely to claim any of the limelight in big architectural projects, so I'm not convinced there will be much (or any) pre-internet coverage to change the situation. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs don't support notability, they are primary, trivial or industry press. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.instead of deleting let's talk how to modify the content in order to make the article compliant. Much of the information is from the firms own website and can be validated elsewhere as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.73.120.36 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, talk away! But the task isn't to prove the claims are true, but rather to show LER meets Wikipedia notability criteria for companies. Wikipedia isn't a listings service for structural engineers. Sionk (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been developed by a series of WP:SPAs, some of whose account names abbreviate or invert the company name. None appear to have made the required WP:DISCLOSE declaration. AllyD (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the nom's question about when the firm was established, this source indicates that Worthington, Skilling, Helle, & Jackson, whose John Skilling and Leslie E. Robertson were involved in the engineering for the Twin Towers [4], traces back to a W.H. Witt Company in Seattle. The article on their current incarnation, Magnusson Klemencic Associates carries the same 1923 date, and it looks more appropriate there than for this article. (The LERA firm is indicated here as members of a trade organisation since 1981.) AllyD (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article's tendency towards a slideshow brochure of developments in which the subject firm played a role is a concern, albeit one which could be addressed through article protection and insistence that the WP:COI conditions are followed. Regarding notability, though, it is WP:NOTINHERITED from work done on notable developments. The best source is probably the New Yorker item from 2001, though it is more about Leslie E. Robertson and mentions LERA only as assisting in the post-9/11 investigations. I don't see enough to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability for this firm. AllyD (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't inherited, references fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TVS Credit Services[edit]

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

I can find no evidence this is a notable company and it's parent company is questionable. I can find nothing other than primary sources, press releases and passing mentions. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earnings for architects[edit]

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

Something troubles me greatly about this article. Sorry, I can't quite put my finger on the exact issues from a deletion policy perspective......but it just feels wholly unsuitable. We're not glassdoor. We don't list salaries for various professions, for example where's the article on earnings for medical doctors or earnings for pilots? I would happily have taken some of the useful info in here and put into the main architects article with a redirect, however there was a proposal that was closed due to lack of responses so i didn't want to jump the gun. what do you all think? is this article misplaced/unsuitable, and how best to deal with it? apologies if AfD isn't the best way to approach this. Rayman60 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I saw this and went through a similar viewpoint to you - I had a flick round, and there don't seem to be any other comparable articles. It certainly looks like it should be part of another article. But i then ran through Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and none of the grounds looked wildly violated - it didn't seem to fail the "not for Wikipedia" grounds, so notability was the only remaining one. I then had a look through WP:GNG & WP:CORP. None of the grounds here seemed to be specifically breached either - just logically being part of another article doesn't prohibit having its own. I'm going to remain as a comment for now to see if someone better up on their Notability can explain differently - otherwise I'll shift my Comment to Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. The article is largely trivia and is of questionable accuracy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dream Team (TV series). (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Porter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is of a fictional non-notable football player that fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dream Team (TV series) per previous AFD consensus, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Fletcher. Giant Snowman 15:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE - WP:FANCRUFT Acnetj (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above consensus is that these fictitious players are not notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Smith (psychologist)[edit]

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

Despite the apparent claim to WP:PROF, this seems to be just an average teacher (the "Associate Professor in Psychology" doesn't appear to be backed by credible sources) who has appeared on television a few times, and that's about it. A search for sources is made difficult by several other notable people with the same name, but I can't find anything of greater substance than this - and that's just not good enough for a BLP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete resident parapsychologist? Not notable, minor TV personality, does not meet WP:PROF.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PROF isn't met, and neither is the GNG. There's nothing inherently in this person's career that suggests any kind of inherent notability either. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or substantial rewrite, because of possible misrepresentation of the subject. A search for "Matthew Smith medium" turns up some mentions. Are there two Matthew Smiths involved in this shenanigans, or is the psychologist also Minister Matthew Smith (from England) the noted physic? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's weird- there are two. The minister had a previous career as a professional clown bio here. Text of the WP article appears to be from Skeptics in the pub. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable under BIO, GNG, or PROF. All sources I could find were either by the good doctor, advertising his services or goods, or from unreliable sources. The very best I could find is [5], which is the most casual of mentions, and there is no strong indication it is the same individual. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
extraneous remark I am glad to see User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me is still about. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. There are whole lot of reasons why this page should be speedy deleted, I am not going to get into all of them. kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aarish Anoop[edit]

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

Yet another promotional article of non notable 5-year-old kid who was squeezed in minor film scenes, perhaps he wasn't even aware. Lacks any meaningful coverage. Fails WP:BIO failsWP:ARTIST Completely –Ammarpad (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N Bobherry Talk Edits 13:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Wardle[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG; WP:1E t best. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some references. She has been written about both for her role in the creation of the Bayeux Tapestry replica and for her role in founding the Leek Embroidery Society. This book, The Rise and Fall of Art Needlework: Its Socio-economic and Cultural Aspects, devotes an entire chapter to the society including pages 95-97, specifically about Elizabeth Wardle's role. That chapter is not viewable in Google books, but the preface on page 14 outlines the discussion to come. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Despite Boleyn's assertions to the contrary, this person is clearly notable.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks as if the article was given too little time before the AFD was placed. Now it shows Wardle is notable for more than a single event and there are multiple, independent, reliable sources in the article confirming this. Thincat (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see multiple books discussing her. Not a vital article to be sure - but NOTPAPER. I'll note that the original article, when nominated, did not assert significance clearly - it screamed NOTINHERITED bio (from her husband Thomas Wardle (industrialist)) without asserting her independent notability in embroidery (mentioning the Bayeux Tapestry replica - but making it sound 1Eish). Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a major historical player, but certainly meets the notability threshold for a Wikipedia article. GrindtXX (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks for creating + improving the article Thoughtfortheday. Hmlarson (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by others the article has clear evidence of notability. Dunarc (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 4[edit]

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

Article currently does not satisfy the requirements set by WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG; contains no sources and no known reliable coverage exists. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:2993:8646:CE13:27D9 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 06:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I am compelled to point out WP:NEXIST, as the nominator says the article contains no sources. But that is not a reason to delete in itself because sources could possibly exists but nobody has put them in the article yet. With that being said, this album has been listed at many electronic music sites but has not received coverage beyond its basic existence, so there really are no possibilities beyond WP:ROUTINE for this album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here is why but first a comment. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:2993:8646:CE13:27D9 You do realize that you are being a hipocrite right? You contributed heavily to the page and then you decide to nominate it for deletion? That is hypocritical. I am appalled at this. Please consider this when deciding. My reasoning for keeping this is that yes it is a small article, but it is also in the stub category. It is being worked on. Thanks for considering! (User Page Here! | Chat With Me!):) -Modded

Comment - Admins may want to look into the argument between two users as mentioned in the above vote. Meanwhile, there are three previous volumes in this Monstercat series and those all have their own articles that are much better sourced than this one. Perhaps this is what the above voter is presently working on. But I will point out that even though the articles on the previous volumes have many sources, most of those are about the bands and/or their songs, as opposed to coverage of the compilation album itself, and that is probably what will happen to the article for this volume too. Compilation albums like these need to be noticed in their own right, and notability for a compilation is not inherited from the artists/songs therein. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG here. Most hits are social media, tracklist databases, and music/video streaming websites. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babloo Srivastava[edit]

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

Delete These do not meet WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP and wikipedia should not be used for self promotion. Acharya63 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable self promotion Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable ex-convict. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjeet Bahadur Srivastava[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP and wikipedia should not be used for self promotion. Acharya63 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable self promotion Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The local level of office is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL. Municipal councillors are accepted as notable in only two specific circumstances: either (a) they serve on the municipal council of a major, internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto, London or Mumbai, or (b) they can be reliably sourced as the subject of significantly more coverage than most other city councillors could also show. But Barabanki is not in the class of cities required to put condition A into play, and the three references shown here are not enough sourcing to fulfill condition B. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable personage. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Pierre Tomlin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. ]WP:1E at best. Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn’t a notable person, no credible reason to be on Wikipedia. Daps166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daps166 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Argo[edit]

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

Fails notability: Of the three references, "Odyssey Online" is user-supplied content; "Noisey" has no reputation as reliable source; and the "Wired" piece is about Poppy, with Mars Argo only being mentioned in passing. There's not enough there to satisfy a claim of "substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources" per WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I think the wired notation is acceptable as it does cover the topic of mars argo quite significantly even if it isn't the main purpose of the article. Also, Noisey is a branch of VICE which is quite a reliable source. I would like a further explanation of what you mean by "user-supplied content". The reason Mars Argo has such little notability these days is because Titanic Sinclair tries to shut it down. Him and Mars Argo had an awkward history together and he doesn't want the past to surface. Thank you for speaking with me. Have a nice day. smartalek22 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody reading the Wired source, "Welcome to Poppy's World" could possibly call that "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail", when the topic is supposed to be Mars Argo. What makes Noisey (a branch of VICE) a WP:reliable source? Where is its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? It's an ephemeral, pop-culture blog. The "Odyssey Online" site is user-generated content and the guidance at WP:UGC is clear that it's not acceptable as a source - see https://about.theodysseyonline.com/apply/ . The reason Argo has no notability is that no reliable sources exist that provide significant coverage of her. That means we shouldn't have an article. --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs more cites but is notable through the collab project between her and Titanic Sinclair and Sinclair's later work. The article about Poppy in Wired will be only one of articles about the Sinclair/Poppy project which will mention Mars Argo. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Titanic Sinclair is not notable, and neither is his collaboration with Mars Argo. This is just a couple of kids uploading to YouTube. Passing mentions of Argo in other articles does not establish notability. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Titanic Sinclair is a notable figure as the current director of the Poppy project as featured in reliably excellent sources such as the The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/11/poppy-youtube-meme-pop-sensation-titanic-sinclair-moriah-pereira) and New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/arts/fembot-poppy-lil-miquela-kylie-jenner.html). Titanic and Mars also have 48.9K and 20K followers on Twitter respectively and their collaborative YouTube channel has almost 10 million views. They are definitely notable figures. Sunriseblossom (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Sinclair is so notable, why doesn't he have a Wikipedia article? Point me to where our guidelines show that number of Twitter followers count towards notability? This is an encyclopedia, not a pop fan tribute site, and Mars is definitely not a notable figure. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think an editor has tried to put up a Sinclair page, although I'm not sure. He will have one eventually, even the Guardian and New York Times cites mentioned above go to that as well as many other sources. I think now it's just a matter of someone determined enough to put up a well-written page for Sinclair. His work with Mars Argo and Poppy, as well as his own videos and writings (songs and the YouTube Red tv show I'm Poppy), put him in the notable-but-no-Wikipedia-page-as-yet category. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Everyone above must avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy. The existence of, and quality of, articles on Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are irrelevant to the debate on this particular Mars Argo article. Also, don't forget WP:CIVIL. Meanwhile I have seen no pronouncements within the WP community that Noisey is not a reliable source. I could be wrong but there are other places to debate that matter. So I would conclude that the Noisey review at [6] is at least partially valid, and there is another robust review from Consequence of Sound at [7]. That might be enough for basic notability but I think it's a bit of a stretch because otherwise this artist is mostly talked about in blogs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You actually make a good case for inclusion. And articles about Titanic Sinclair have and will inevitably include information about Argo, as they worked together for a long and productive time. Her connection with Sinclair is relevant in terms of notability, as it seems she has retired from music and her musical history is tied-in with his still ongoing career. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the two reviews are not quite enough, but would not argue with you or anyone else for voting "Weak Keep" based on those same sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage such as Noisey, Conquest of Sound and Wired (the Poppy content could be added here as there is speculation that Poppy is Mars Argo) for WP:GNG to be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs some more RS, but the subject is notable. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly don't believe there is enough coverage to justify an article, and coverage is about the only way we could argue for notability here. --Michig (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough references for notability. Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Neptune's Trident has been improving the page in the last couple of days, so the quality and material has changed for the better. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yet after a further two weeks, there is now a completely unsourced discography, but there are still only two sources that discuss Mars Argo (Noisey and Odyssey). The other four are articles about Poppy, and give Mars Argo nothing more than a name check. Of those two, Odyssey is an "... internet media company that operates based on a crowdsourced model, receiving articles from a base of thousands of volunteer authors ...". User-generated content has never been accepted as contributing to WP:GNG per WP:UGC: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." So that leaves the Noisey webpage, and that's just not enough to establish notability, per WP:SIGCOV: "... multiple sources are generally expected." Without any explanation of why an exception to our polices should be made for Mars Argo, those policies clearly indicate deletion. The closer hopefully will examine the references in the light of this. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NMUSIC and significant RS coverage not found. This is not a viable article, as the notability / sources are just not there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the WP:NMUSIC criteria: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Her style is compared, through the association with Titanic Sinclair, with the Poppy style and, although different, there is enough of an overlap that Argo has "become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". There are only two representatives of the Sinclair-style, Mars Argo and Poppy. That Argo is consistently mentioned in articles about Sinclair is not trivial, as those sources create a pattern, and this pattern should be taken into consideration when ascertaining a notability claim. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having briefly gone down the Poppy rabbithole a few months ago, I'm not surprised to find this article now existing, and likely to be notable. Even if this subject is not deemed independently notable, and there is some legitimate debate to be had over the best way to provide coverage of the pop culture weirdness that Titanic Sinclair has spawned, it would deserve coverage on the Sinclair article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that an argument to merge the content into Titanic Sinclair (which anybody is free to do), not an argument to keep this non-notable article? --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because she is notable, as argued in above posts from myself and others, and because Sinclair and her created a successful project, which ended when she left. They both contributed to the project, so a merge to the Sinclair page would make her more or less Sinclair's creation, which isn't accurate. She had her own presence, and just because she no longer performs doesn't make her any less important in the progression of a notable style (Argo, Sinclair, and later Poppy). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - But she's not notable and the policy makes it clear. We go by the sources and if the overwhelming majority of sources merely mention her name but are actually coverage about Sinclair or Poppy, then that's where the content should go. Putting the sourced information mainly concerning Sinclair or Poppy into their respective articles doesn't "make her more or less Sinclair's creation", it's simply what the sources say. Now, if you are going to insist that Mars Argo is notable, you're going to have to answer the question "What are the multiple, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Mars Argo?" --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "Keep" editors, who at the very least seem to have made this a 'no consensus' result if not the obvious (to them) outright "Keep", see the references as adequate. May I point out that you were arguing, above, that Titanic Sinclair is not notable, and now you are advocating moving the Mars Argo information into the Titanic Sinclair page. Because of that alone, may I respectfully submit that your viewpoint in this one instance - the unique style created and represented by Sinclair, Argo, and later, Poppy - may be missing the notability of those three topics which others are seeing. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Sinclair's debatable notability is yet another red-herring here. My viewpoint is equally irrelevant, because the delete argument relies simply on the failure to show sources to meet WP:GNG. The closer will have to acknowledge that and close with "delete" as that's where policy lies. The crux of it is that you can't name more than one independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Mars Argo, can you? --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC, and the sources don't go beyond promotional articles, and aren't from significant news outlets. UnsungKing123 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With a recent turn of events, the Lawsuit has brought some relevance to the topic of mars argo and is reported on a reliable source. http://www.tmz.com/2018/04/17/youtube-legal-feud-titanic-sinclair-mars-argo-thatpoppy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.168.105 (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borhan Khan[edit]

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

The page was speedy deleted back in 2015. this is a BLP on a film producer but IMO he may fails WP:PRODUCER because he has produced some non-notable short films only. Also Film producers don't get free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist, except they meet WP:GNG for their work as producers. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Found almost nothing in Bengali. No significant coverage from any newspaper. --আফতাব (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt for the reasons above ~~and the unresolved questions of sockpuppetry~~. Cabayi (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author's explanation, resolving the sockpuppetry issues show he's been used as a cat's paw by Borhan Khan (User:Borhankhan01). Unfortunately outside the scope of G5, but marks the article as a vanity piece by proxy by a manipulative narcissist. Cabayi (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityTrails[edit]

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

I don't see any significant independent RS cited on this page. Google search does not yields anything solid either so apparently the company does not appear to meet relevant notability guideline WP:CORPDEPTH and even lacks trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources to be able to establish notability for this company. Fails both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One drivers from Chile[edit]

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

Unnecessary page. First, Chile never had "drivers", since there's only one F1 driver in history from Chile. Also, that driver had his final race 35 years ago. Information here can already be found on Salazar's article. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I feel that the article should stay based on the fact that there are links to this article on the bottom of other articles as a template (Template:Formula_One_nationalities), it means that it is easy to check if there have been additional Chilean formula one drivers.SSSB (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC). It also makes it easier for people to check if there has ever been a Chilean formula one driver and how many there have been.SSSB (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is a List of Formula One drivers page to see how many drivers from Chile, which is one, drove in F1. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One entry does not make a list. Ajf773 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a listSSSB (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as G5 and was also a hoax--Ymblanter (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madina Sauytova[edit]

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

At this point, does not pass WP:NSPORT, also it was not demonstrated that she passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Оразбаев Касымбек--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)) and it's a hoax. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: Eh?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim See the SPI I linked and previous deletion as a hoax. RU also deleted it as a hoax and blocked the master (who created an identical article on the same subject here in March.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3 G5 and WP:NSPORT Bobherry Talk Edits 15:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. and Speedy Delete as G3 G5 per chrissymad ~~I'm not honoring the G3 and G5 because I want someone else to look first and only because the source seemed to support content. (manlged google translate)~~ A7 and G2 were not appropriate tags.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I opined here so it would be unseemly to delete myself.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim The "source" is self-created. It is identical to the last deleted hoax and identical to that of the one deleted as a hoax on RU wiki. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I misfiled, here's the master: [8]. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Taekwondo at the Youth Olympic Games. There were no games in 2016 and Kazakhstan has not won a bronze.PRehse (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banita Sandhu[edit]

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

Promotional article of non notable kid. Fails WP:BIO fails WP:ARTIST. Persistently recreated to promote her since 2017 including via sockpuppetry creation after indefinte block. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 12:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 12:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 12:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of yet non-notable actress who fails WP:NACTOR. Making their debut in a Movie in 2018 film, so WP:TOOSOON is an obvious concern, as is the article's multiple creations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR Lyndaship (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ - I don't wanna impose policies like the above editors. My reason is that this actress' acting career is too short to carry notability. She had appeared in just a few advertisements and one film. Same was the case with this girl's article. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a free web host. samee converse 08:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Samee: When did I say so? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial !vote implied so. samee converse 22:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. samee converse 08:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salting, as this is the fourth time it has been recreated. Elassint ^Hi 21:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I change my vote here. The article is being vandalised badly. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhead Building Supply[edit]

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

Article advertising minor retail shop of building materials masquerading as company. Fails WP:NCORP completely. The article is totally sourced with combo of unreliable and business sources that cannot establish notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably qualifies for speedy delete, as promotional and non-notable. The references are a good illustration of what we do not accept. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Supranational 2017[edit]

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

Yearly article on a pageant that was deleted at AFD as not notable. If the pageant isn't notable, neither is any of its events. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Szzuk (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did not meet WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Tale Croatia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Article created by possible COI editor who has created and recreated a deleted article on the film's director. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly amusing, the subject is an advert - with references that link to the advert and nothing else. Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty confident in saying that a single ad for a tourism board isn't notable in and of itself, especially given how obscure all the associated people and places are. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no claim of notability. GregorB (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article is unencyclopaedic, promotional, COI, likely copyright violation and even the principle editor wants it gone, nothing to waste time on here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Astor[edit]

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

This article has been written by editors with a conflict of interest. The article creator has recently blanked it, though it has been edited by others and doesn't therefore seem eligible for speedy deletion. This edit summary suggests that the content might be a copyright violation of this book. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And see now article creator Olga.Bru1's comment at Talk:Villa Astor. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Imagine video games. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine: Animal Doctor[edit]

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

Article doesn't pass WP:GNG. None of the Imagine games are notable in themselves. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm fully right in the middle between !Delete and !Keep here. There is an in-depth IGN review here: [9], Game Informer supposedly gave it a D (although I can't read it from the Google Books link) here: [10], and Nintendo Power supposedly also reviewed it as seen here [11]. There's a book that mentions it but in the context of the whole Imagine series here for being somewhat sexist as well: [12]. I think there's enough sources here to theoretically make a stub, but I don't see much more to hope for anything else. Nomader (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to List of Imagine video games, individual titles are not notable, the redirect is already in place so there isn't much left to do. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular preference for redirect or delete and then redirect. Szzuk (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually an article there, I'm not sure why it was moved to a redirect whilst the deletion process is in place. I have reverted this Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect; the deletion of this article already had consensus from this discussion, not sure why we'd need another. Lordtobi (✉) 07:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, agreeing with Szzuk, article should be redirected to List of Imagine video games. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun Farmers[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Using the video games-related search engine, there are very few useful results. There is this from IGN India and this from Siliconera. The sources already in the article are not enough to pass WP:GNG, and the award is insufficient, too. Additionally, Steam is not considered reliable for reviews per WP:USERGEN. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Arthur Thomas Hatto. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Hatto[edit]

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

Small business owner, donated collection to a cultural institution which in turn published a short bio of her on the webpage describing said collection: [13]. Sadly, there are pretty much no other sources. The creator has made arguments on article's talk and DYK page which I expect they'll copy here, but sadly, nothing in them seems sufficient to me to counter the simple fact she is not notable and fails WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. (And as sympathetic I am towards the entire 'Women in Red' initiative, they have to be notable to get an article around here). The subject may be admirable, but until there are sources discussing her life and significance beyond few sentences on a single webpage (and her bio was likely submitted by her family for that page), she is non-notable. PS. Some content could be merged either to Arthur Thomas Hatto or to the Royal Opera House (maybe Collections of the Royal Opera House would be a notable subarticle?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She founded two successful businesses after escaping from Nazi Germany, had her products sold at prominent stores, and is one of only seven individuals who have had their collections of photography added to the collection of the Royal Opera House. Taking as a whole the 19 individuals who have had their collections added to the ROH as special collections, at least 13 of them have Wikipedia pages.

At the same time, some of the nominator's comments (link) with regards to Hatto's notability, such as "As you know well, men are more notable than woman", are problematic. The view that notability must be viewed through a gendered lens, not to mention one that deems the notability of men as greater than that of women, is, at best, incorrect. At worst, it opens every discussion over a woman's notability with the assumption that it must be lower than that of a man's; Hatto's businesses and collections had nothing to do with her husband's academic work—and indeed they arose out of a need to provide for her parents, not his—so why would we include them in his article instead of hers? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic comments are irrelevant here, please stay on topic. That said, saying that man are more notable than woman is not problematic. It is a fact. Or a statement of a problem, one illustrating gender inequality in our content, the very same problem that projects like Women in Red are valiantly trying to address. If women were as notable as man, the only reason our coverage would be unequal would be because we, the editors, are more likely to write about man than woman. And while this may also be the case, the underlying problem is that there are fewer notable women to write about, because our society did not allow (and still does not allow) women to gain as much fame as men (ex. 90%+ of politicians worldwide are men, etc.). But we should never allow our bias inform our actions (including edits). Wikipedia will have fewer articles on women as long as there are fewer sources on women. Bottom line, it is irrelevant that the subject here is a women. The subject is not notable, and their gender is unimportant - they didn't receive coverage nor did anything else to qualify for WP:BIO. PS. I do wonder if the two statements 'women are less notable than men' and 'women are less likely than man to meet notability guideline than men' are the same. In any case, if it helps to alleviate any confusion, I meant the latter (and I believe the former is a simpler way of saying it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is just plain time to end Wikipedia initiatives that seek to ignore rules to fix the past and right perceived wrongs. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia not a place to advance social justice. The very process used in decideing to create this article makes it not NPOV and is alone grounds to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "The very process used in decideing [sic] to create this article makes it not NPOV", Johnpacklambert, what decision-making process are you referring to? You seem to be referencing my own mental state, thoughts, and impressions while creating the article; I hadn't realized that those were so readily available for review. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Three of the references here are articles about her famous husband, Arthur Thomas Hatto. Only one is a write-up from her collection at the Royal Opera House. The page does not satisfy "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, the references about her husband are only used to fill in minor personal details, e.g., the name of their son-in-law. The primary source for the article has nothing to do with her husband, presumably the reason you removed your erroneous statement that "The only two references here are articles about her famous husband, Arthur Thomas Hatto." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're down to one reference to satisfy WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Yoninah, but WP:BIO is clear that more than one reference is not necessarily needed; being included in "the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication" is seen as sufficient indicia of notability by itself, for example. The Royal Opera House is a prestigious institutions with an important collection donated by notable people (as mentioned above, at least 13 of 19 donors already have Wikipedia pages). It's significant, it's reliable, and it's independent. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the amount of detail in the Royal Opera bio, it looks as if there must be other sources, probably available from the Royal Opera or from Jane Lutman who donated the collection and now lives in St Albans. Let's keep the article for a few days more until these have been investigated.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Ipigott. Just sent the Royal Opera House an email, and depending on what they say will try to get in touch with Lutman as well. The automated response said that "The ROH Collections is open for enquiries Tuesday to Friday", so a response may be a few days in coming. In the interim, I've added a source on her silversmithing. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am wrong (because I'd prefer for this article to be kept after better sources are found) but the answer is likely going to be 'family archives'. In the meantime, I support keeping this open, pending a reply from ROH. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Arthur Thomas Hatto per nom. Fails WP:NBIO WP:GNG. GretLomborg (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sedale Threatt Jr. (actor)[edit]

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

An actor that has only one noble role, does not meet the standards of WP:BIO. In addition, See, WP:ONEEVENT. — Lbtocth^talk 08:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Lbtocth^talk 08:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Lbtocth^talk 02:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Lbtocth^talk 02:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centres of influence[edit]

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

Not notable Volunteer1234 (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A search indicates that this phrase is fairly well established, although this article doesn't do a great job at demonstrating it. I added a couple of sources to remove the one specific CN tag. I would however change the primary name to "Circles of Influence", and have Centres be the redirect to that - it's a much more active phrase Nosebagbear (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted Response @Otr500: regarding "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" - only the first line is sole definition, which is standard form. The second part regards things to bear in mind about usage, and the latter considerations about those being included. Regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE it doesn't seem to violate any of the standard given variations. General Notability (more specifically, lacking it) would seem the primary grounds to reject this, and I feel it avoids that, just. [p.s. wasn't sure of correct procedure to provide an AfD response severed from comment with a relist - apologies if incorrect] Nosebagbear (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Good response to me. The lead states "marketing term" and the article has no distict direction so is vague. It uses wording like "key people within a businesses", "professional advisers of customers". Except to some "specialist" or someone "in the know" this "term" would have no actual meaning and I still don't know what it "actually means" even after reading the article. Try reading the article as a member of the general reader world. Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the "not a dictionary" argument is valid. The rest of the thin, poorly written article is a marketing advice, which is also something that wikipedia is not WP:NOTADVICE. I did try to copy edit the article but there isn't anything there to save. Volunteer1234 (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might some notoriety for the term, but if this page and the lack of web articles cited is any indication, it's not a full encyclopedia entry's worth of content or cultural significance. Ace Class Shadow; My 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamba Lakidi Pamba (2018 film)[edit]

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

WP:Artspam (about upcoming movie)inserted after posting created--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC) created by user named for production company. While there are some Times of India cites, the coverage is not sufficient to meet GNG. Press release site, IMDB and subject's web site. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. samee converse 08:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 08:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is blatant advertising done brazenly with business username. Mere promotional mention is newspaper or interview cannot establish notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and a violation of What Wikipedia is not. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Luke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously deleted and, although he has since run for deputy mayor of Newcastle and lost, there is no evidence of anything that would make him notable having occurred since 2010. Grahame (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even in cities where we accept the mayoralty as notable, being acting mayor for a matter of weeks between the resignation of one mayor and the proper election of another, solely by virtue of having held the position that would automatically make him "acting" mayor in the event of the incumbent's death or resignation, is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts him from having to already be notable for other reasons besides that and/or actually be reliably sourceable to more than just routine coverage of the by-election campaign itself. But there's no other notability claim being made here, and the sources aren't about Luke so much as they're about the by-election campaign itself, thus not supporting that he's any more notable than any of the other five candidates who also lost the by-election. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being mayor here is not enough for notability, even less so acting mayor for a few weeks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being mayor of Newcastle is absolutely notable; acting mayor not so much. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National League Division 1[edit]

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

Non-notable second-tier Irish league – it's barely an amateur league. There is nothing distinguishing about this league, hence the copy-and-paste from Super League (Ireland). Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I cant find significant coverage from multiple, independent sources, unless they exist in Gaelic.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking and re-voting below based on discussion with Guliolopez.—Bagumba (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Basketball Ireland. No indication that the relevant WP:NSPORTS criteria are met or that WP:GNG is met. The links in the article (or otherwise available from a quick WP:GOOGLETEST) only/barely confirm that the league exists. Not that it meets the relevant notability criteria. If this content is to be retained (under a different title), it would seem at least plausible that a passing mention might be appropriate in the Basketball Ireland article. Guliolopez (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guliolopez: Basketball Ireland is a governing body and is not about Basketball in Ireland. Not sure if this league is under the purview of Basketball Ireland or not.—Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bagumba: Hi. According to the article in question, National League Division 1, it is. According to the Basketball Ireland article, it is. And according to the organisation's website, it is. I read all of these as part of my AfD review. Guliolopez (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Guliolopez: My bad for missing that. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guliolopez: Upon further reading, is National League Division I actually ran by Basketball Ireland itself? The RadioKerry source in the article says Fixtures for the upcoming 2017/18 Basketball Ireland National League season ...[14] Is it the same "Division 1" in the "National Leagues" table at Basketball_Ireland#Competitions? (If I'm naive, it's because I'm an American and thinking from the USA Basketball model, which doesn't operate any leagues.)—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. That is my understanding. The body seems to operate two main mens competitions. The top-tier Premier/Super League[15] and the second-tier Division 1 League[16]. As per my note, I don't see that the second-tier league has enough independent coverage or notability to meet GNG - for a standalone article. But the small amount of cited/supported information could, instead, be trivially covered in the "parent" article. (FYI - I am not Irish basketball expert either. I have not been to a top-tier game in 30 years.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bagumba, @Guliolopez Basketball Ireland has four "National Leagues": Men's Super League, Women's Super League, Men's Division I, and Women's Division 1. The Super League (Ireland) article probably should incorporate the women's league as well, but the Women's Super League really isn't that notable. The only reason the Men's Super League is notable is due to it's heyday in the 1980s, with the influx of Americans. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Basketball Ireland. After discussion above, it's clear that this is a league run by Basketball Ireland. With that in mind, "Basketball Ireland National League" provides more search results, and would have been a better title. I'm still not sure if it deserves a standalone. Barring more information, at worst, the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT advises that it's OK to split later, if needed: Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. The content to be merged is quite small as well.—Bagumba (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge though. Everything at National League Division 1 is generic. Everything one really needs to know about Basketball Ireland's competitions is at Basketball Ireland. To have a specific section on Division 1 would even be too much in my opinion. There is nothing overly defining about Division 1. "Basketball Ireland National League" is not a thing, rather "Basketball Ireland national leagues". DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bending over backwards to WP:PRESERVE, but honestly don't know enough and will defer to experts if it's WP:UNDUE to merge. Even just listing the Div 1 teams is too much?—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. I could give an Australian comparison to where those clubs are on the pyramid, but I wouldn't be able to give a US comparison. I think we've gone too in-depth into this very minor competition. I understand your naive positioning – I've had a niche interest in Irish basketball for a few years now, so this who debate seems overkill to me. Perhaps a PROD would have been more appropriate. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm circling back as I don't know if merging to Basketball Ireland is WP:UNDUE or not. Guliolopez had written that a "passing mention" is worthy, which exists already in the table at Basketball_Ireland#Competitions. I'm willing to reconsider merge if anyone has new arguments. Otherwise, the content can always be WP:USERFIED upon demand, if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Morales (actor)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Significant RS coverage not found. The "Grabby Awards winner - Best Performer" category is not significant or well known, the rest are niche and / or scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another point in our extreme overcoverage of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG /–Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional crapfest created by a likely paid editor and never meaningfully improved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic failure of WP:PORNBIO. Strange... the article was created about famous Mexican soccer player[17] Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Tipple[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors do not get a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed — if you're going for "notable because he's had roles", rather than "notable because he got a major acting award nomination", then the notability clinch is not in the list of roles itself, but in the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage in media that can be shown to get him over WP:GNG for the having of roles. But this cites no sources at all save his IMDb profile, which is not a notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR - no achievement awards found after a WP:BEFORE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Tipple[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR, and no media coverage means no WP:GNG. Deleted once before by a 2007 Afd and his credits since don't materially change anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, an actor does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because he's had roles — if he hasn't won or been nominated for a major acting award (Emmys, Oscars, CSAs, etc.) for one or more of those roles, then the notability clinch is not in the list of roles itself but in the depth of reliable sourcing that can be shown to get him over WP:GNG for the having of roles. But there's no evidence of a GNG pass here, as the only sources present in the article are two directory entries (which are not support for notability) and a Q&A interview on a Blogspot blog. Not even one of these sources cuts any mustard whatsoever for referencing an actor as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor roles do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Michael Cohen (lawyer). Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office[edit]

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

per WP:FART (and, more seriously, WP:NOTNEWS). This is a news story, and clearly not notable outside the context of whatever larger story it is relevant to. I'm not sure it's relevant to an article on "Russia-Trump" stuff or Stormy Daniels stuff. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Everything related to Trump seems to be horrible, but not all of it is noteworthy. This belongs in the fart category (hah). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is widespread and clearly meets WP:N. Nothing within WP:NOTNEWS forbids creation of articles that clearly meet WP:N about an event.Casprings (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. - "Trump associate investigated" falls into that categorization at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If/when it's clear *why* the raid happened, I'm fine with a merge/redirect. I don't see that yet, and definitely don't see how it's related to Russia (as the article navbox implies). power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a small event within a few notable events; for that reason, I cannot pinpoint a single merge target. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it was rather foolish to create such an article before any actual impact (the thing that makes recent events notable, historically) or at least more context. Sadly, however, as long as recentism bias exists, time will be wasted on discussions like this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We not only have a huge amount of coverage, but there's a growing body of commentary explaining why this raid is incredibly important. It's rare on WP for us not only to have RS but to have RS explicitly stating that the subject is notable. Just for instance, see Volokh Conspiracy and Popehat. Sure, these are blogs, but as WP:BLOGS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." These are reliable sources telling us that this raid is hugely important. Thus it certainly meets the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surely in the coming days or weeks we'll find a better place to incorporate this content, and leave this as a redirect, unless somehow this single event becomes more individually significant.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The event has already been added to a section in the Michael Cohen article. I see no need (yet) for the event to have its own page. --kewlgrapes (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow it didn't occur to me to redirect to Michael Cohen (lawyer). That seems the best option here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Cohen (lawyer). Maybe there will be more significant coverage in the future, but we are not a crystal ball. Natureium (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Natureium. This has happened, but on its own it does not have sufficient significance to warrant its own article. Inserting the appropriate content in the article is what is usually done with such material. I don't think there is grounds for a redirect since it would be too obscure, i.e. falls per WP:R#DELETE reason no. 8 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. Anything worth covering can be included in the artcile on Cohen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amicism[edit]

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

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

Non-notable in-universe cruft. All sources are WP:SELFSOURCED Wikias. — IVORK _Discuss 03:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy A11 or G11. G12 doesn't apply, it's copied from Wikia which is CC-BY-SA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable elements of a non-notable game. Zero mentions online outside the Wikia page. Per Power~enwiki above, this could probably be speedied A11. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that both this and Jerome Historic District need not exist. As to which one should be merged to the other can be decided on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 12:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona

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

Redundant to existing topic, Jerome Historic District and/or Jerome, Arizona. This is one in a series of non-valid, non-notable list-articles for Arizona towns/cities which generally constitute wp:OR about what properties are historic. With none or few sources, this seems to come across as one local editor's personal view about which buildings are notable. Another irritating thing is they list, in bold, various building names as if that is to make them notable, and they omit wikilinks where the occasional one or two of them is indeed individually notable (e.g. as if it were separately listed on the National Register of Historic Places), which it turns out none of these are. Work within the existing framework of articles about historic districts that are actually listed on a historic register, please. Doncram (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have visited Jerome, spoken to local historian there, verified that the entire darn town is included in the National Register-listed historic district (actually a National Historic Landmark district, which is honor roll for NRHP districts). Probably i uploaded pictures, not positive, this was some years ago. We don't need or want redundant list-articles which only seem to give room for marginal extra stuff. --Doncram (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current article includes an NRHP infobox for Jerome Historic District, which does not belong in this article which is not the article about that subject. I would simply delete it. For other Arizona towns/cities in the series, the corresponding list-article basically consists of items in the corresponding historic district (which are notable, properly covered within the historic district article) plus vaguely historic other items not valid for coverage, with little/no sourcing about their historic importance. It is more appropriate to develop the NRHP historic district article, and include mention in the corresponding town/city article about the NRHP historic district plus perhaps some mention (if sources support) about other historic resources in the town. --Doncram (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a simple misunderstanding on the part of the article creator, that historic district articles can/should do what this list-article does, but with more substantive content and sourcing. A list of pretty good historic district article examples, which include lists of their contributing resources, is here. --Doncram (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the list-article is NOT a list of any local Jerome town/city historic register's items. wp:HSITES and I would generally support creation of a list-article about any local historic registry that any town or city or region chooses to officially create. Instead, this is an ad hoc / unofficial list, which we don't want, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge the Jeorme Historic District stub into this one. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think we need a U.S.-wide series of "List of historic properties in CITY, STATE" articles corresponding to every "CITY Historic District" article topic, which is what exists, usually with more development, in every other state. Why not merge this list-article to Jerome Historic District, the older Wikipedia article. There is no justification provided for merging in the other direction. --Doncram (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely proper list. Most of the town appears to be in a historic district, which means buildings that wouldn't be notable on their own (since the building itself wouldn't be on the register) could be added to this list. The nominator's two arguments are WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the second one of these isn't valid, and this doesn't appear to be original research due to the large number of sources found in a before search on the very topic. Furthermore, deletion is not cleanup as the nominator also proposes above. SportingFlyer talk 05:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What can establish historic notability of individual properties is their being contributing properties in the NHRP/NHL historic district (assuming they all are...if one is not, it should probably not be mentioned). The NRHP/NHL HD article existed previously and can include a list of all of these (this comment seems not to understand that). There is no reason to create a separate list-article on the topic. How is this an "absolutely proper list"? It should be merged into the previously existing article, we don't need a series of new parallel articles. --Doncram (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with the list at the moment is that it may be slightly ambiguous in its determination due to the use of "some of the historic structures" in the article heading, but it's easily fixed. But the list passes WP:GNG and WP:CSC very clearly. If you're looking to merge instead of delete, try Wikipedia:Merging#Step_1:_Create_a_discussion, but there's absolutely no reason why the information in this well-sourced, informative article should be deleted. SportingFlyer talk 13:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is an appropriate forum to get wider, uninvolved participation. Merge to Jerome Historic District is an acceptable outcome, though I would frankly prefer "Delete" decision to send a stronger message that new content forking like this is not wanted. We don't need a separate new Merge discussion where only the content forker and I would be discussing it; this is already a proper discussion of the merits of deleting or merging. Sure, any well-sourced informative stuff in this new article can be moved to the original article. Yes, vagueness in this article's topic is concerning. --Doncram (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper reason for the use of a deletion discussion. The list is notable, is not original research, and passes the guidelines for lists. You simply don't like the article and that's pretty clear given your continued participation in this AfD. SportingFlyer talk 02:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest this is technically the wrong venue to discuss this; I am not sure about that. wp:SALAT about standalone list articles, wp:CONTENTFORK, and wp:SPLIT don't provide guidance as far as I can tell. If others disagree that this is the right forum, though, I suppose I could close this or wait for this to be closed, then reopen same discussion at Talk page of one of the related articles, and invite everyone to give their views again. I certainly am open to general direction about how to address content forks / splits.

But AFD certainly has the power to come to a delete or merge decision here. --Doncram (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article and merge Jerome Historic District into this. Or, perhaps List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona could be renamed to Jerome Historic District. I agree that we don't need two articles about the same topic, but the article proposed for deletion contains far more content and is more beneficial to the Wikipedia reader. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"or perhaps rename" -> well that is implemented by merging into the JHD article, which is older and more fundamental. Just because a new content fork is formatted/written nicely, doesn't mean that we give primacy to that new fork. Put any nice writing into the long-existing article, at its more fundamental name. --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This well written article should not be merged into the Jerome Historic District stub because it is not about the Jerome Historic District. This article is about the few structures indentified as historical by the Jerome Historical Society within the Jerome Historic District. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, using Wikipedia jargon, it is a wp:REDUNDANTFORK and should be merged back into main article. Fork creator just said everything in the article is covered by Jerome Historic District topic. --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redundancy is not a reason to delete – see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Merge"? The entire content of wp:REDUNDANTFORK is "Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. If you suspect a content fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not understanding opposition to Merge the new article into the long-existing article. "List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona" is not a thing, it yields zero separate Google hits. "Jerome Historic District" yields many Google hits, is a fundamental thing. The fork creator acknowledges here that everything in their article fits in the Jerome Historic District article topic. To commenters and eventual closer, please consider actual arguments about which name is better, not addressed in assertions amounting to "this article is nice". No valid reason suggested to usurp older article and its edit history; the problem is new fork creator ignoring existing structure and not working within it. --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the opposition wanting to be nice to the new fork creator, and to avoid offending by deleting? I would be fine with there being a redirect left behind, so no actual deletion of their edits, and with new content all being moved to the main topic. But this is not a new editor; they should know better; they don't need patronizing. --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- for the closing admin. This article is "not" about the Jerome Historic District since all of the structures in the district are not historical nor considered as such. This article is about the few historical structures within the district as deemed by the Jerome Historical Society. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So then this article does not make any sense. Its title is "historic properties in Jerome" but it is not supposed to cover some/many historic properties (contributing resources) in the Jerome Historic District ?!?!?! The article does not in fact state up front (and probably not anywhere) these just-asserted criteria for inclusion. The list-article topic is vague and wp:OR. I would not totally oppose there being a different article about the Jerome Historical Society (I have myself created some articles about local historical societies), or better a section about the Jerome Historical Society within the Jerome Historic District article (whose bounds include everything about JHS, according to Tony the Marine). --Doncram (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ideal, then, to know what properties within the district are contributing properties to the historic district and which aren't. But, I can't find that list within the National Historic Landmark designation or the nomination document. Maybe the Arizona SHPO would have a list available, but it's not online. So, it's entirely possible that the Jerome Historical Society has picked out a set of properties that are a subset of what's in the NHL nomination, and it's possible that they listed a couple properties that aren't actually NHL contributing properties. But, I will note that the article proposed for deletion has a lot more information on what's in the district than what's currently in Jerome Historic District. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The NHL documentation for the historic district (see 220MB PDF here) does not include a resource inventory, so there is no list of what contributes or not to the district. It does not even including a finalized boundary for the district, although one has been proposed (PDF page 128, sketch map on page 112). Historic district stub article is probably best redirected to Jerome, Arizona, owing to the lack of detail. Magic♪piano 16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I just added references about the particular historical properties which also show the plaques which the Jerome Historcal Society placed describing the historical importance and significance of each one of them. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are appropriate to include in Jerome Historic District article. Why do you want to have a different article? Please explain, seriously. --Doncram (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay maybe a different misconception here is about the contents of historic districts. NRHP-listed historic districts include "contributing resources" and "non-contributing resources". We in wikipedia will tend to explicitly cover the Contributing buildings, Contributing structures, Contributing objects, Contributing sites, and say no more than necessary about non-contributing intrusions into a district. Tony the Marine is suggesting, I think, that they don't want to cover the historic buildings in the JHD (i.e. the ones they accept as historic because the JHS is specifically commemorating them with plaques (which I have seen too), because Tony the Marine believes the bounds of the JHD include less-historical, non-contributing buildings. Is that the perceived issue? I see no problem with covering the very-historical elements in the JHD article. I see no merit in creating a bogus new list-article, "List of some but not other historic properties in Jerome". --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Elkman mentions above that the list article includes far more content than Jerome Historic District. This is true, but much of that content appears to have been copied word for word from the featured article Jerome, Arizona. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please – let’s not make this discussion a personal one by stating “Tony the Marine” said this or that. Nor by stating our own POV by calling the article “Fork” or “Bogus”. The fact is that not all of the structures in a historic district are historical. This is because many owners of these buildings can demolish and build structures that are not historical. This article is about the structures which the "Jerome Historical Society" have identified as those which are historical, not Tony the Marine. These structures, which the Jerome Historical Society have indentified, are maintained by the society and they each have a plaque placed by the society as such, that's all. Let’s let this AfD take it’s course without further interference, please. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article lead should more clearly express inclusion/exclusion criteria. Magic♪piano 16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No strong opinion on which way to merge, or what title the result should live under, but it's WP:JUSTDUMB to have both of these, especially when one of them is literally three sentences of text. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a single article, which will consist 90% of the content of this article and 10% of the additional content under Jerome Historic District. Which name the combined article should reside under is left to editorial discretion (the other of course a redirect); I would suggest Jerome Historical District since we have more content here than a simple list, but there are clearly passionate people more knowledgeable than I about that. Finally, since there is something meaningful to say both about the district itself, and about recognized historical buildings, and possibly about other buildings not on someone's recognized list, wherever the article ends up, let's make sure it says what is interesting about all of these, without hair-splitting about whether it fulfills some a priori definition of scope. Martinp (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Cut[edit]

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

Non- notable youtube/Video maker. Even if he was, seemingly only primary sources are available. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 02:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say I love this series, but I don't think the sources that are out there are quite enough to pass notability.★Trekker (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Same here. I actually like the series, but there aren't any non-primary/reliable sources...💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 18:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

Most from Film School Rejects, but found some others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espngeek (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ledbetter[edit]

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

Not a notable person. He is involved with a distillery that now has an article (Chattanooga Whiskey Company), and maybe a redirect is acceptable, but for this person that's the most we should expect. Coverage on him is only related to some activism related to distilling legislation in the state. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Associated with one Wiki-notable company, and this is typically insuffient at AfD, barring strong sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chattanooga Whiskey Company; no notability beyond his involvement with the company. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan Stevens[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY and WP: GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If/When he plays in the NHL next year the article can be recreated. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. We need to do something to stem the overcreation of articles on hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fíriel[edit]

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

Obscure character, plays only a minor role, even in the backstory. Not a notable topic. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (1) Per ATD, PRESERVE and R we do not delete pages that are plausible redirects with mergeable content. The worst case scenario for this is simply a merge/redirect to J R R Tolkien's book. (2) There are independent etc sources in GBooks providing commentary on this character. In view of the amount of coverage Tolkien has received, I would not be surprised if this satisfied GNG. I'll look again more closely later, if I get a chance. James500 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious fancruft is obvious. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haangale[edit]

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

Geonames gives more specific coords than the article, but in either case there appears to be nothing there but fields. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non existenet town, fails V and GNG. z'L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several settlements along the river close to those coordinates: [18] [19] [20] I suspect it's one of those. Hut 8.5 21:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Vouyer[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CREATIVE and significant RS coverage not found. The "Hot d'Or Award winner - Best American Director" category is not significant and well know, the rest are scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scene-related awards don't matter for actors. They're all that matters for directors like Voyeur. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malik Shabazz. Plus Vouyer is also a member of the AVN Hall of Fame and XRCO Hall of Fame. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines. The special pleadings ignore our actual guidelines, which are clearly flawed even as they exist because we have so many more articles on pornographic actresses than women judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG /–Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:PORNBIO as an AVN and XRCO Hall of Fame performer, director, and producer. Bio can be fleshed out with information about his career and company from XBIZ and AVN (magazine). Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received a great deal of coverage, extending even to the New Yorker (though that article alone likely wouldn't establish notability). Mainstream coverage appears to be more common as "Vince Voyeur". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Films[edit]

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

I found nothing to show notability for this company or any of the films. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability in the article, no refs, nothing i can see on google. Appears they make snowboarding films only. Szzuk (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen McNulty[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a radio personality, and a similarly poorly sourced article about her show. While a radio show being syndicated can get it over WP:NMEDIA if the article can be properly sourced, none of the sources here cut it in the slightest -- three of the five are primary sources, and the other two are dead links from a defunct user-generated content aggregator website -- and those two are supporting a weak notability claim, that the show once won a not particularly notable award. And the host does not automatically inherit a notability freebie as a standalone topic, either: if she isn't the topic in her own right of enough coverage to clear WP:GNG, then she doesn't get to keep an article on here just for existing either -- but even she's sourced only to her own self-published website and her own LinkedIn profile, and shows no evidence of reliable source coverage about her either. Simply put, neither article features the substance or the sourcing needed to be considered keepable at all under contemporary notability and sourcing standards. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks plausible, so I gave sourcing an honest swing, but I can't find soruces that cut the mustard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both neither meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastly[edit]

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

This article references either simple business listings, routine coverage, non-notable sources, and user generated content hosted on sites such as ComputerWorld and TechCrunch which WP:NCORP explicitly states does not constitute reliable coverage. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open MfD here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Fastly Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note: I have COI disclosed here. The page was reviewed through the WP:AFC process and approved by an unbiased third party. WP:NCORP only discourages the use of TechCrunch and similar sources when the article is written by a "non-staff 'contributor'", and that is specifically to weed out paid contributions. Discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard point to this as well, and suggest that the portion of the content from these sites from non-biased sources can be considered reliable. Furthermore, TechCrunch is a major industry publication, and simple common sense precludes a wholesale disregard of it as a source. Computerworld is a 50-year-old tech magazine and the source is reliable per WP:NEWSBLOG. Both TechCrunch and Computerworld have editorial oversight. While some of the sources may be regurgitating press releases, others represent a depth of coverage that extends beyond churnalism, and are enough to establish the notability of a company that serves over 10% of all requests on the Internet. The company's last funding round was also covered by the Wall Street Journal, but I chose not to use that reference because the information was adequately covered in non-paywalled sources. --Sykes83 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article: [21], [22], [23]. ~Kvng (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed as per Kvng. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Plastic Surgery Appeal[edit]

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

This article seems to only reference either the subject's own site, newsletters and other non-reliable sources. A preliminary Google news search didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ignoring the links from the charity itself and the websites of its team members, there are several references from reliable sources. WalesOnline is the website of two mainstream Welsh newspapers, the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo. Nursing Times is a trade publication for the nursing profession in the United Kingdom. Sunday Life (Belfast, Northern Ireland) is a mainstream newspaper. Clin Plastic Surg is a medical journal, and the article from it was apparently included to show the credentials as a researcher of one of the surgeons rather than a description of the charity. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am scouring the web for some more varied sources to add to the page. I do agree with Eastmain however that many of the sources used are reliable, such as Wales Online and the Telegraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbavin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is wales online and Nursing Times [[24]]. Szzuk (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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