< 17 April	19 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Uddin[edit]

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

Not notable. The article has many references but none of them suggest this person is notable. In fact most of the references do not mention this person or mention him in passing only. Searching on the internet I found no references which suggest this person has any notability. الدبوني (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability (music). Polyamorph (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC SeraphWiki (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once this page is deleted it should be redirected to Kamal ad-Din.--الدبوني (talk) 14:26, 25 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 Sabotage (Black Sabbath album). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Start (Too Late) (song)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NSONG, don't see why it needs its own article. Could possibly serve as a redirect to the album. Home Lander (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sabotage (Black Sabbath album) - The creator of the article has been temporarily blocked from WP and is probably unaware of notability requirements. While SOME individual songs by famous musicians have their own WP articles, not ALL qualify and the article creator has gone overboard. The song has some individual coverage in fan-oriented media but a WP article is unnecessary. But now that this thing exists, redirecting to the album as a search term is a painless option. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect fails WP:NSONG SeraphWiki (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sabotage (Black Sabbath album). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1, nominator proposed merge, and no other editor suggested delete or redirect. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 11:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March for Our Lives Portland[edit]

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

Limited notability outside of parent article March for Our Lives Springee (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect This article has little original, non-trivial content. Of the four sections, one is the introduction, one is background which covers information that is part of the primary topic. The organization section is almost completely trivial information or information covered in the final section of the article. The final section again has mostly trivial details. The material of note in the article could be condensed to a single paragraph and covered in the parent article where more readers are likely to find it. A second child article, March for Our Lives Albany was redirected and merged for reasons similar to the issues here. [[1]] Springee (talk) 23:10, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Note consensus not to merge on the article's talk page. This article is similar to articles about other notable local events, such as as March for Science Portland and Women's March on Portland (the former of which is a Good article, I might add). What nominator deems "trivial" is the base for many similar protest articles -- background, mission, organizers, planning, event description, participants, impact, commentary/coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many sources in article, notable event; Portland is a major city. My sense is the nominator (who apparently thinks it should be deleted by putting this article up for AfD) should not be allowed to vote above (and then the vote is merge?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

without vote, but with mentioning WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The submitter wants it to be a merge. While I'm all for AfD ending up in merge as a commentator agreement, that isn't its purpose - there is a plan for controversial merges, surely having a look at WP:PM makes more sense. If the local consensus has already opted against merge, I suppose you could opt for delete if you think it fails without it, but re-doing merge this way risks WP:FORUMSHOP Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I want aware of that option. Should we close this now and restart the discussion that way?Springee (talk) 10:26, 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! 22:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Welborn System[edit]

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

Notability for this page is lacking. Source is dead and no mention of it anywhere else. Wi7less (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've fixed (or found an equivalent archived) the link, but it still doesn't meet notability, and I've not found anything else looking around either, though a scientist named Welborn kept coming up in scholar - but no mention of him in the article, so unless otherwise pointed out & supported I will assume not linked . Nosebagbear (talk) 14:13, 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 speedy delete. no evidence oof notability, part of spamming for the organisation, likely COI/paid editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rovshan Muradov[edit]

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

A long way off meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:55, 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! 22:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Mirzaei[edit]

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

Does not appear to have played in a fully-professional league per WP:NFOOTY. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I cannot even read it based on its grammar. Delete and if WP:FOOTY exists then re-create. Currently nothing shows any notability evidence at all. ATZNA 14:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mehrdad Mirzaei is the best Oghab player in the team to go to the European and American leagues. He has already thought of receiving offers from American League teams. During his time, Oghab base teams scored more than 100 goals for adults. there is no reference of this and so is the article, only reference is a facebook post. ATZNA 14:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, @ATZNA: looks like you're voting twice, you can't do that. Govvy (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Govvy: Woops, my apologies. I've removed it to one vote. ATZNA 14:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:18, 20 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) 15:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non of the teams the subject has played for are professional, or even barely notable. The only link provided in the article is from another language Wikipedia project. Clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:28, 22 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! 22:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Levin[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written as usual like a campaign brochure, of a person notable primarily as a not yet elected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that a person was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this makes no claim of preexisting notability, and is referenced to just two pieces of WP:ROUTINE local media coverage and his own self-published campaign website -- which is a depth and volume of sourceability that every candidate in every election everywhere could always show, so it's not enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing stated or sourced here has already earned him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the campaign brochure aspects of the article (the policy positions that reference his campaign website), making this less of a promo issue and more of a straightforward WP:TOOSOON case. Personally, I think he'll win, but he's not really notable unless he does. Elassint ^Hi 00:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of four serious contenders in this primary for an open seat, no previous notability that I can see. However, I believe that we need to give serious consideration to changing our guidelines to permit keeping articles on major contenders for open congressional seats.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Article mentioning his funding record in CA is maybe slightly more then WP:ROUTINE, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:09, 22 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 Nasr (deity). Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nesr[edit]

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

From what I can tell, nesr actually means some bird that may be either eagles or vultures. The claim that it is the name of a deity inevitably traces back to questionable 19th century sources; I can't find anything more recent to corroborate that, and I don't think we need a dictionary definition of one ancient word. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I can find from books and scholarly source available online confirms what the nominator said. I think this will need someone who can read Arabic to find some sources if it is to be kept, but, unfortunately, there seems to be few of those editing the English Wikipedia - much fewer than some lesser-spoken languages such as Polish or Japanese. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nasr (deity), for which Nesr seems to be a variant transliteration by 19th century scholars trying to reconstruct a pre-Islamic Arabian pantheon from passing mentions in the Quran and explanations of them by later commentators. PWilkinson (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect obviously, per PWilkinson. Transcription from Arabic script to Roman is a difficult process when it comes to vowels, so this is a possible alternative spelling. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hegarty[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 11 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)} 21:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:HOCKEY per nom. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he clearly falls well short of the criteria needed for an article. Deadman137 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:HOCKEY, and fails WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (unfortunately) does not satisfy WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:00, 25 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! 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dabarow[edit]

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

Nonexistent Somali "town". The one source cited says it's actually a hill. Satellite imagery doesn't show any settlement near the claimed location, Google Maps does have a feature named "Daborow" close by but it doesn't look like a settlement. To be notable as a hill per WP:NGEO it needs sources which give significant information about it, all I can find is dots on maps of Somalia. Hut 8.5 21:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non existent palce fails every NG and SNG on non-existent places. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a non-existent place failing WP:NGEO. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:01, 25 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 Business incubator. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business incubators in Pakistan[edit]

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

mentioning a bunch of non-notable entities. I dont get the logic behind such a list.. WP:LISTCRUFT.. Saqib (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Not even in the remote bit encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are other standalone articles existing like this, this and this. So, there's no harm in creating this list as WP:LC suggests that In general, a "list of X" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. And I have also made some other tweaks in the article and also in categories [2] [3]. But one thing I don't understand is that, why these things are not first discussed in talkpage of the article, instead of straightaway nominating for deletion, considering that the article was hardly a day old. M A A Z T A L K 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the entities mentioned on the page does not seems to have their own standalone articles so such a list is unwarranted IMO. --Saqib (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 of them mentioned are stand-alone articles:

National Incubation Center
P@SHA
Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority
Ignite (Pakistan)

About the others that I have mentioned, IMO are significant enough to be mentioned in the list, as its likely that they will also have individual articles in near-future. I don't think that's a big problem. The list is harmless. M A A Z T A L K 09:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of these four entities you listed, I suspect two should be deleted right away because they fails to meet WP:CORPDEPT. I will nom them for deletion. --Saqib (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can nom them for deletion, but ethically speaking, you should do it after the result of this Afd. As you have already voted here(in an article) that involves those 4 articles. The reason why I say that, is because it would almost seem deliberate on your side, i.e to sabotage this article while its result is proceeding. M A A Z T A L K 13:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: On what basis would you say this? I don't think there is any restriction to remove or delete ill-sourced or non-notable stuff during AfD's. --Saqib (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can nom them for deletion. I said, ethically speaking. IMO, nominating them during this Afd would feel like a deliberate attempt of sabotage and somewhat disruptive to this AfD. M A A Z T A L K 19:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be noted I've not yet nominated any page for deletion, except Ignite (Pakistan) which was obvious advertising and therefore speedy deleted. But I am planning to AfD at least two pages listed above which I believe does not pass WP:N, but unsure when.. If you feel I'm trying to disrupt this AfD, I'm happy to allow this nom run its course first. --Saqib (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually found more notable incubator articles in Pakistan with many reliable sources like Invest2Innovate [4]

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and Telenor Velocity [11]. These articles will also exist independently in near future. In light of above arguments, and the increasing trend/notability of start-ups in Pakistan, I think it would be fair to keep this article. M A A Z T A L K 20:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Ma'az is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete. Business incubators are notable, but there doesn't seem to be anything to demonstrate independent notability for business incubators in Pakistan. I would say merge to the Business incubator article, but the article is a list that doesn't call itself a list so there's nothing to merge. Marianna251TALK 23:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) - vote changed, see below Marianna251TALK 11:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the reference mentioned in the article. M A A Z T A L K 13:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business incubators is also synonymous with startup incubators. M A A Z T A L K 13:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. --Saqib (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list does not exist for other countries.. why for Pakistan? --Saqib (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the WP:OSE argument, which revolves around both validity and non-validity. I think the article is notable, and passes Wikipedia guidelines per WP:N, which is a better argument, and on that basis, it should be kept. M A A Z T A L K 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Mine one was not an argument.. I am just asking you why do we need such a list for Pakistan? I'm just curious why we don't have such a list for United States which has around 50 and United Kingdom which as over 15 notable incubators. why for Pakistan? And I'm just curios, what made you say "Business incubators in Pakistan" is notable whereas it is not, clearly. --Saqib (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the other lists can also be made. No rules against it. M A A Z T A L K 15:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. the lists cannot be easily made. Had this been the case, we should have such lists. Just recently, List of business incubators in Ghana was deleted because such lists does not meet WP:LISTN. & You said " I think the article is notable, and passes Wikipedia guidelines per WP:N" please explain how? --Saqib (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'az - the main business incubator article has a section that lists notable business incubators. At the moment it has a distinct Western bias, but that can easily be updated by people like yourself. This article, aside from the list of incubators, has nothing of substance - I can sum it up in the sentence "Business incubators are increasing in Pakistan". So what? The same thing is happening across the world. Personally, I would have considered nominating this article for speedy deletion using critera WP:A10 ("Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic"). For the article to stay, it needs to have something notable about Pakistani business incubators that does not apply to business incubators in the rest of the world - and even then I would argue that it would be better incorporated into the main article. Marianna251TALK 17:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia is hard on these articles. If an article is within the guidelines, it can be created. I think there can be separate lists of business incubators of other countries as well, as its within the guidelines. M A A Z T A L K 19:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The indentation of your comments was a little unclear, so I've amended it. Hope that's okay. Back on topic: it's perfectly true that articles within the guidelines can be created and retained, but you have yet to explain how this article falls within the guidelines and why you believe it is notable. I've explained why I believe that the notability of business incubators does not automatically confer notability on business incubators in Pakistan, and without that, this article lacks any notable content. That would be the case with any article about business incubators in any other nation, so suggesting that other lists could be made is a moot point. Please can you explain why you think business incubators in Pakistan fulfil the GNG of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I clearly don't agree with you - convince me. Marianna251TALK 22:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for clearing the indentations. I think the article passes WP:GNG per sources mentioned in the article, and I think, the sources do in fact talk about business or startup incubators in Pakistan. Having said that, I also think there are multiple reasons for keeping an article. Like I said in the beginning, the article also passes WP:LC, therefore the article does fall in Wikipedia guidelines. M A A Z T A L K 17:53, 24 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)} 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to merge to Business incubator following updates made to the article. Ma'az has added sufficient sources for me to feel that there is now some content of substance there, but not enough to warrant its own article. If we're going by WP:LC, the sentence "The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article" seems apropos. The business incubator article only has a few incubators listed, all Western - it's nowhere near saturation. I would suggest updating the list in the main article and adding a section about global trends/national variations on business incubators for the rest of the content. Marianna251TALK 11:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair assessment; and I finally got my indentations right here. :) M A A Z T A L K 16:05, 26 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! 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SWFT Blockchain[edit]

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

Non notable Blockchain, no coverage and most of the sources make no mention of SWFT. Also highly promotional. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom (speedily IMO). SmartSE (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, nto enough indepth coverage from non-cryptoblogs. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourced to cryptoblogs Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was rewritten to strike a more neutral tone. Third parties legitimate sources are cited in every section. The page, therefore, does not qualify for deletion. AlexLWitt_(smalltalk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the writer of the article, I used the feedback from this discussion to rewrite the page. I included one reliable source (e.g., the company's white paper, and a Harvard Business Review article on the truth about Blockchain) in every section to inform readers and keep the content relevant. I even excluded the "Cryptocurrencies Listed" section to eliminate the "promotional" tone that the comments above complained about. The article is in accordance to Wikipedia's principles and should not be deleted. Victoria cpg_(smalltalk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant coverage. While Victoria's above effort is admirable, I'm not sure it's been entirely successful. Wrt the reliability, I'm not sure Victoria cpg has seen the general notability guideline. For inclusion of an article, we require secondary sources independent of the subject. The white paper is neither. I don't think that GNG is satisfied here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abimbola Ogunnowo[edit]

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

i added thi article to my watchlist since its time in draftspace, because i knew she does not meet NACTOR and i suspected its creator would move to mainspace soonest. Ogunnowo has not had enough significant roles in multiple notable films. I created the article for City People Entertainment Awards, and the awards are not reputable enough for nominees to be conferred automatic Wikipedia notability, and definitely not a minor category like "best new actress". HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article show that there is significant coverage of the subject of the page in major Nigerian newspapers. Hence, she meets WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sponsored interviews is not significant coverage. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Ajasco was added to lede as a significant act, but any actor apart from Papa Ajasco, Mama Ajasco, Pa James, Boy Alinco, Miss Pepeiye is simply a guest artist and such role doesn't confer auto notability for NACTOr.HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: My suspicions on the likelihood of the article creator (a supposedly new Wikipedian) being an experienced COI editor who have mastered how to make non-notable subjects seem notable was what prompted this nomination among other things. I deliberately chose not to be carried away by the "sponsored" coverage in reliable sources, as they were lacking core independent depth for an actress. Even the date of publication of some of the sources raises some eyebrows. I wanted to give a detailed analysis on why her roles in Papa Ajasco and Eldorado are likely not significant, and her other films do not meet WP:NFILMS, but that is not necessary since I will be dropping my nomination. However, my eyes are on the article creator for promotional contributions, I am going to cleanup the article now. I am withdrawing because of the attention she has gotten for having tribal marks, which has limited her impact as an actress. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:39, 23 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! 22:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Batali[edit]

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

Non-notable writer lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. The notability guidelines for creatives working in film/television are unclear. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals) Quote: 'The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.' I'd probably make this a weak keep due to uncertainty, and we need to address his body of work, as that's where it appears that notability would be evidenced (or not.). Ross-c (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delte This is an article on a living person that has no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1002[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, WP:NASTCRIT, and WP:GNG. No popular coverage, no published papers about this object other than as a member of large lists, not naked-eye object. Basically just another anonymous database entry. Lithopsian (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found nothing except mentions in long lists and the Wikipedia article about its planet Kepler-1002b. Didn't find anything, that would make either one notable according to WP:NASTCRIT though. AntiCedros (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, this is nothing but values pulled from a list, does not meet WP:NASTRO (not inherently notable). Maybe we should start pushing for a general policy that objects should not have their own article if the only data is the kind that is available for all other objects of the type and could be contained as a few items in a list for all objects? Tarl N. (discuss) 00:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with above. Nothing found in Google Scholar. Just a data card. Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 24 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) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chen bottom mine[edit]

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

No assert of notability Amisom (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article "China's undersea sentries" in Undersea Warfare magazine published by the US Navy and this article, while not actually saying an awful lot about the mines, makes it clear that the Chen series of mines are an important part of the Chinese arsenal. For certain they will be covered in Jane's publications. These are not available online, but I would be astonished if there was not substantial material in either Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance or Jane's Naval Weapons Systems (edit: or Jane's Underwater Warfare Systems). There are bound to be Chinese language sources too. SpinningSpark 21:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And see WP:ARTN as to why this is an invalid nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policy and Spinningspark. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:42, 24 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! 22:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pranay Reddy Vanga[edit]

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

Blatent self promotion. Page was moved to Draft looking for more sources but the subject has returned it to mainspace after removing the sources that were there [12] . Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I'm not too concerned about the history of the page, but about the subject himself. It appears that he has been involved in one significant film. I think this is WP:Too Soon for an article. 21:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete - This is an inadequately sourced autobiography. As noted, involved in one significant film. If a neutral editor is ready during the seven-day deletion discussion to make it into an adequately sourced article that establishes notability, that is different. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Edaham tried to save this by moving it to draft space, but if the author is determined to have it in article space, one of the features of article space is Articles for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overlooking the reticent, or possibly defiant attitude of the editor who reinstated the material without improving it or seeking the assistance made available through AfC, it’s now a BLP with no refs and a PROD candidate. In this case, I agree the history of the page doesn’t matter because there’s no version of the page we could restore it to, which would make it a passable mainspace candidate. I do think the article could exist if the editors involved (excluding the subject himself if this is an auto-bio) in creating the page put in the effort to provide verifiable inline citations. This would probably involve scaling the article down and removing the trivial autobiographical info. Edaham (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Arjun Reddy. Does not appear to meet ANYBIO or have signficant independent coverage unrelated to that film. Nor does it appear that Bhadrakali Pictures — an alternative possibility for an article — passes CORP, despite the claim in this press release. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:27, 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! 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Heimdal[edit]

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

We have quite requirements for articles about artist codified in WP:ARTIST that presume that the artist has a career as an artist. This is based on (local) human-interest stories about a child. Let's wait until his work is seriously considered by sources that are competent to evaluate the artistic merits of an artist (art-historians, professional art critics), the work is exhibited in notable museums or galleries or in some other way meets our notability guideline that is not based on "oh, look at this kid" type reporting. I don't usually comment on the quality of an artists work because it is so subjective, but in this case it is quite obvious that the work is by a very young, inexperienced hobbyist. The Østlands-Posten is a local newspaper with a circulation of approximately 14,000 Their article is about an exhibit in Stavern, and the only mention of Heimdal is "William Heimdal er årets yngste utstiller med sine 14 år." which translates to something like "William Heimdal is this year's youngest exhibitor at 14 years old." Vexations (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A misconstruction of the purpose of WP:ARTIST. The point of that and other specialized notability guidelines is to capture the consensus that in some specialized fields there are subjects who may not meet the GNG but yet are notable. If a subject does meet the GNG it becomes irrelevant whether or not they meet a special notability guideline. So maybe this subject doesn't meet WP:ARTIST, but he very clearly meets WP:GNG even just on the basis of the RS already present. A few minutes with GNews and GTranslate will convince anyone that there are plenty of other RS as well. The artistic merits of his work are therefore irrelevant, as is the question of whether his work is in museums. In fact, once there are sufficient RS to establish notability, the fact that he's an artist is also irrelevant. Maybe Jim Carrey's paintings e.g. are crap (or not; I have no idea) and they're not in museums, but he's still notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few minutes with GNews and GTranslate will convince anyone that there are plenty of other RS as well Since you appear to have do so already: Can you provide those sources, please? I'll address the GNG vs SNG issue in a separate comment. Vexations (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WRT notability for something other than being a painter, that doesn't apply here. The subject is only noted for being an artist. A "Femten år og kunstgeni" (Fiteen-year-old art genius). no less. I'll argue that because the only claim is that Heimdal is noted for being a painter (or a child genius), the author of the source ought to be qualified to make that judgement to be considered a reliable source. A local reporter from NRK is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
Delete The four short mentions in local papers do not establish notability.104.163.140.141 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Norwegian Wikipedia page on the artist https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Heimdal has many more references, but I can't read them. We need someone who can read the references on that page and judge how notable the artist is. It shouldn't be based solely on the four references currently on the English page. 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs)
The sources that are unique to the Norwegian version are
http://malmskole.elevavis.no/index.php?artID=345&navB=1

http://wktheimdal.wixsite.com/heimdaldrawings/single-post/2017/06/03/Kitsch-slik-jeg-forst%C3%A5r-det

http://www.skienskunstforening.no/blogg/fremtidig-nerdrum-elev-pa-besk

http://www.t-a.no/kultur/2017/07/09/William-14-stiller-ut-p%C3%A5-Galleri-Mini-i-Oslo-14997772.ece

https://www.detskjerioslo.no/hvaskjer/96357.html

https://www.op.no/kultur/kunst/utstilling/williams-store-evner-far-ikke-plass-na-haper-14-aringen-a-fa-ja-til-a-utvide-garasjen/s/5-36-539084?ns_campaign=article&ns_mchannel=recommend_button&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=facebook&ns_fee=0

https://www.stavernkunstogkultur.no/?cat=3

You don't have to be able to read Norwegian to tell that wktheimdal.wixsite.com is the subject's own blog, or that www.stavernkunstogkultur.no/?cat=3 is an announcement. The author, Tore Bergstøl is the same for both articles. Perhaps they can explain the discrepancy. Vexations (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no claim of importance or significance of this 15-year-old artist. Without compelling evidence that the coverage is non-trivial and isn't "human interest" pieces or media puffery, this should be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 20 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! 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRiichi[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NGAME, lone source is GitHub, might even be TOOSOON. ToThAc (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not too soon, but this is clearly a delete. No RS indicates that this game cannot demonstrate notability at this time. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only 3d riichi videogame which is crossplatform and FOSS. Even though it is in an early stage, the game is playable, and if you compared to the others in the list of mahjong videogames it stands out. therefore I think the page won't be deleted. By the way I am not a developer, just a player who decided to create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongi (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We justify an article topic by its presence in reliable, secondary, independent sources that tell us why it is interesting. Your topic does not seem to have any of those sources. Do you know of some? If you do not, then it actually is not all that interesting for Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as article seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:07, 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! 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Dreams Music[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unambiguous advertising, with highly promotional tone, and a complete lack of suitable citations. As such, fails the general notability guideline, and is in an irredeemably poor state, constituting a large amount of what Wikipedia is not. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:G11. This would have to be completely re-written to be an encyclopedia article. There are no sources in the article indicating notability, and an online search produced no sources that could help meet GNG. Non-notable as a record label (no roster of notable artists, no indication that the label has influenced a genre or a region's musical culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. I can't find any evidence of the release of any more than the two albums mentioned in the article, suggesting no lasting notability – the label certainly doesn't appear to have been active for some years. The label's founders are not notable, the albums are not notable, the artists featured on the albums are not notable, and to be honest the article for the parent company Spun Records is an AfD candidate as well. Richard3120 (talk) 16:06, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gulane[edit]

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

Another Somali "town" which is actual a non-notable "locality" according to geonames, and as usual there's no "there" there. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non existenet town, fails V. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:20, 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]

I've found a few mentions of it - [13] says there was a military operation there, [14] says that UNICEF fixed their well and [15] says there was a drought there. Hut 8.5 21:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And there is something close to the given coordinates which looks suspiciously like a settlement: [16] Hut 8.5 21:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe DioGuardi[edit]

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

no verifiable, independent, third-party sources; the subject is not notable or made notable by virtue of having been found guilty of professional misconduct or having published tax books - law societies find lawyers guilty of misconduct on a regular basis; the article lacks neutrality and is self-promotional AoJ.KM (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable tax lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There do appear to be verifiable, independent, third-party sources in GNews and GBooks. Lack of neutrality or self promotion in the article is WP:SOFIXIT. The Toronto Star describes DioGuardi as "famous", "prominent" and "high profile" in various articles. James500 (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @James500: Thank you for commenting. I looked further and, excluding his own website, came across only one mention of him being either "famous", "prominent", or "high profile" (two Toronto Star articles, one obscure blog). These articles are about his divorce, being found guilty of misconduct by the Law Society, or his own tax problems, and appear to use those words liberally. For example, the mention of him being "famous" is in regards to his ad campaign (i.e. you might know him from seeing his billboards around town). So yes, he's been called famous, but I have read WP:BIO's notability guidelines and cannot see how this individual meets the primary consideration (i.e. is "worthy of notice", of "note", "remarkable", or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". These guidelines note that fame is a secondary consideration, and it would seem that more societal consensus is needed to reach what an ordinary person would consider "famous" than one Toronto Star article using the word. So, I'm still left wondering what makes this particular individual notable. This is not someone who has made an objectively significant impact on the Canadian legal system, in which case I would be happy to rewrite the article; otherwise, hundreds if not thousands of lawyers should have articles dedicated to them.AoJ.KM (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have prominent news coverage, such as him getting a $5,000 fine for professional misconduct. Since it is well-cited, I've added that to the article, making it a bit less promotional. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough rs coverage to pass WP:GNG, apart from being a notable lawyer he is notable for being a co-author of a book that was on the Canadian business bestseller list for 10 weeks. Atlantic306 (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Atlantic306: Other than a claim on his own website, there is no record I can find of his book ever being on a bestseller list for 10 weeks. And there's no mention of what particular list to assist in the search. WP:GNG states that the coverage should be "independent of the subject" and excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. References 1, 2, 4 (broken link), 5 (broken link), and 7 cannot be considered as they are "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". 3 isn't a reference (should be corrected as a link to an article on the Barreau du Quebec). 6 is a Toronto Star article on his professional misconduct. 8 is a link to a short article in which he gives some tax advice. 9 is a broken link, the article no longer exists on Macleans website, the article may actually be coverage of his father, and I can't find an archived copy anywhere (maybe someone else can help?). I realize all of these references can be fixed, but my point is that other than 6 and 8, we aren't left with much of anything. And although no one has suggested it, the only other coverage he has really received is for his divorce, and I don't think it would be appropriate to cover that in a Wikipedia article. This is the first article I have ever put up for nomination, so I would genuinely appreciate some more feedback on the points I'm raising, from either yourself or others, as I would like to continuing working on the project in my spare time. Thank you in advance for any guidance. Cheers. AoJ.KM (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do a search for the book listing later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Straightforward pass of GNG as evinced by for instance [17], [18], [19], [20]. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links 1, 2, 4 are regarding the professional misconduct / issues arising from it; link 3 is about his divorce. Covered by newspaper regarding one issue (other than his divorce, which makes it two issues, but I can't see that being included in his article) ≠ a person whose biography is automatically notable unless there's something remarkable, unusual, etc WP:BIO. I fail to see a rough patch in a lawyer's life qualifies. Analogies: is every doctor found guilty of malpractice and whose proceedings were briefly covered by a city's paper worthy of a Wikipedia article; or, is every criminal (which this individual is not, to be clear) whose name is splashed in the paper during trial worthy of a Wikipedia article? Doubtful, unless there's something uniquely worthy of notice - some special circumstance - which isn't the case here. There's nothing encyclopedic about this blip in someone's career/personal life that had a few newspaper articles written about it. Anyway, I've said my piece and this is my last weigh in on the subject. Thank to all for your comments.AoJ.KM (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only thing that suggests notability is the professional misconduct. Findings of professional misconduct (pm) are actually fairly routine. Per WP:Weight the pm would have to have the greatest weight in the article, the promotional stuff is definitely routine, as is the divorce. But putting the weight on pm would violate WP:BLP1E. So I don't see how or why we'd want to squeeze in a promotional article in under our rules for notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment am sticking with my earlier keep vote on the basis that he is notable as an author as shown by these reliable sources:
Globe and Mail article about him and the book
CBC independent review of the book
Newspaper article about the book and his authorship,
Vancouver Sun independent review of the book
National Post article about the book and his authorship.

These sources show his notability as an author and the passing of WP:BASIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 25 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. No clear rationale has been provided by any commentor other than the nom to delete this article, while—with an effectively universal consensus— strong arguments have been presented for its inclusion within the encyclopaedia. There has, however, been some discussion of merging this into a parent article; the clear community consensus in favour of keeping the article, after nearly two weeks discussion and a relist means that that discussion can continue on the article talk page per WP:MERGE. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Statement[edit]

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

Per ~~WP:STANDALONE~~ WP:PAGEDECIDE. It is highly unusual to see an article devoted solely to an organization's founding statement of principles. In fact I can't think of a single equivalent article anywhere in the encyclopedia. The Sharon Statement is only barely notable, and the content here that's reliably sourced is largely redundant with what's already in Young Americans for Freedom. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See ~~Category:American political manifestos.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Oops, my error. The relevant category is Category:Manifestos.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: the notability of the Sharon Statement is without question. Even the New York Times says it is a "seminal document" in the founding of the conservative movement. Numerous Google hits. Numerous reliable sources. And it is not at all unusual for an organization's founding document to have its own article. Take for instance Port Huron Statement in respect to Students for a Democratic Society.– Lionel^(talk) 07:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: minutes prior to nominating Sharon for deletion, the nominator removed almost half of the reliable sources and replaced it with CN tags.– Lionel^(talk) 07:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- No actual reason given for deletion. Nom's statement that they "can't think of a single equivalent article anywhere in the encyclopedia" is not only meaningless in the context of AfD but it also reveals a kind of ignorance of the subject matter which ought to but so frequently does not give editors pause before starting yet another time-wasting AfD. Just e.g. see Port Huron Statement (with which the Sharon Statement is frequently contrasted in RS) and Contract from America. Irrespective of that, this easily meets the GNG. Just for instance, see [21], [22], [23], [24]. There are hundreds more. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination is frivolous. If Nom is serious, he should click on Manifesto#Notable manifestos. And he or anyone taking this nomination seriously should should click on the "books" button in the tool bar. I remind Nom that a remarkable range of subjects can be notable, if they have strong souring. This is just a WP article on a notable topic that needs improvement. What else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been linked at WT:WikiProject Conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. There's no dispute that the subject is notable. The issue is that it's neither encyclopedic nor practical to maintain an article about an organization's mission statement separate from the organization itself--hence my reference to ~~WP:STANDALONE~~ WP:PAGEDECIDE. It's not like Young Americans for Freedom is so long that parts of it need to be spun off. Manifesto#Notable manifestos is interesting, but I didn't find any articles in that list that seemed equivalent. As an aside, I find it odd that all three editors who have responded so far have made oblique, unnecessary ad hominem arguments. I suggest we all try to focus on the merits and avoid personalizing the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not generally respond to AfD nominations so dismissively, but you might want to strike the first 2 sentences of your nomination, they do give this nomination a "frivolous" appearance. I am always willing to be persuaded to change an iVote. I do not claim familiarity with this Statement before I met it here the other day, so I have revisited it in the light of your objection and am here to double down on my opinion. I think that we must regard as independently significant a political manifesto that Eric Foner: in The Story of American Freedom engages with, that Rebecca Klatch discusses in her Charles Tilly Award for Best Book-winning book A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s], and that Robert Donaldson included in his Documentary History of the Nation Since 1945].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor, you should also strike you "delete" vote, a bolded iVote by Nom is verboten since it is assumed that the nomination is a vote for deletion ((nominators are welcome to change to iVote should they change their opinion to keep, merge, or redirect.) In short, you are welcome to join this conversation, but not to vote twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. Fixed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to strike arguments just because you disagree with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was the 1919 Fascist Manifesto that first came to mind, although the Regina Manifesto is a more exact example of "an article devoted solely to an organization's founding statement of principles," as you put it. However, the best example of an article about "an organization's founding statement of principles," would be the United States Declaration of Independence. But even if these counterexamples dis not exist, the argument in the lede is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, it is not policy based. Your nomination would be taken more seriously without it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By some. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge excessive coverage. The sources are really about the organization; the statement has no significance otherwise .As for the comparisons, see WP:EINSTEIN. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is SIGCOV of the "Statement" in scholarly articles listed in my comment (below) and in books that discuss the 1960 the confab held in (posh, upscale, and therefore ideologically congenial) Sharon, Connecticut, and its impact. According to these sources, [[Tom Hayden had read the Sharon Statement before writing the 1962 Port Huron Statement, which has no significance without Students for a Democratic Society. Both are highly probable search terms, making it, I think,reasonable to have separate articles. The number of signers of each statement who went on to become notable politicians is also discussed in at least one of the articles below, more of the Sharon kids became politicians, the Port Huron group produced far fewer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Why was this relisted when no one but nom thinks it should be deleted and even nom admits that There's no dispute that the subject is notable. If even the nom admits that the subject is notable there is no longer any reason for deletion being propounded. What we have here is a misunderstanding of the deletion process and a misunderstanding of the GNG. If nom thinks there's no reason to maintain this article or whatever, she/he ought to redirect it and discuss it on the talk page if anyone cares. And relisting admin ought to at least explain decision to relist. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability isn't the only basis for deletion. And I'm not the only editor who thinks the article should be deleted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So which reason for deletion applies here? You haven't given one. And where are these other editors that think this article should be deleted? Not contributing to this discussion, anyway. Are they part of some kind of silent majority on whose behalf you speak? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid the snarkiness and read. The reasons I gave were in my nomination and follow-up comment and cited WP:PAGEDECIDE. This is a perfect example of the following in our Notability policy: There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. DGG supports merging for this very reason. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not deletion, it's ordinary editing. You could go straight to that article right now, redirect it to YAF and merge any part of it you want, and then if anyone objects, discuss it with them on the talk page. This is prefered to deletion because it preserves the edit history. That bit you quote from WP:N is not about deletion, it's about deciding whether to start a page. Once a page is started, if it's going to be deleted there has to be a reason for deleting it. You haven't given one and no other commenter on this page has agreed with you that the page should be deleted. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between deletion and merging is minor in this context. The reason I sought deletion rather than merging was because, at least at the time I saw the problem, there didn't appear to be any content worth merging. But frankly I don't particularly care if the article is deleted or merged. To suggest that the discussion shouldn't be extended because no one agrees with me because a merge is different from a delete is bureaucratic and unduly aggressive. I'm pinging DGG to clarify whether they agree more with me or with the other participants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is an acceptable close to an AfD discussion. When there's a contested choice between merging and deletion, an AfD is the proper location. Though merging is technically an editorial decision, in practice this no longer applies to contested merges--afd is the alternative to edit war in that sort of situation. That's been our actual practice for many years, as shown by thousands of merge closes in contested AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @DrFleischman: - looking at some of the sources you took out, most key - why did you take out the NY Times. Your summary states "rm ref to NY Times source - failed verification ", but the link provides a valuable reference, is significantly about the statement, doesn't seem a significant breach of any other source rules. Given its importance, it seems key to explain citation removals. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm happy to explain. That source was used in two places: first to verify that the Sharon Statement was called a "seminal document," and second to verify a comment that the Heritage Foundation made about the Sharon Statement. I did not remove the source. I merely removed the ref as support for the sentence about the Heritage Foundation, as the source didn't say anything about the Heritage Foundation. My edit can be found here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is scholarly consideration of this "Statement", including;

AKST, DANIEL. “A Manifesto at 50.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 36, no. 2, 2012, pp. 38–42. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/41933884]. (goes INDEPTH on both Sharon and Port Huron)
Braungart, Margaret M., and Richard G. Braungart. “The Effects of the 1960s Political Generation on Former Left- and Right-Wing Youth Activist Leaders.” Social Problems, vol. 38, no. 3, 1991, pp. 297–315. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/800601].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towards redirects, so I keep trying to see this DGG's way, but I just can't (see my comment just above the relist.) Instead I find that it is discussed in connection with the Mount Vernon Statement, hits like: From Sharon to Mt. Vernon; and this surprising search in gBooks on Sharon + "Mount Vernon statement", I mean, Jill Lepore:[25] , Lee Fang:[ - these are not exactly Heritage Foundation types, and they are seriously engaging with both statements qua statements. I just don't see redirecting this as appropriate. It's the sort of thing I depend on Wikipedia for (the short course on some unfamiliar thing I run into while reading Jill Lepore.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, no one is proposing deleting any content that could not be found at Young Americans for Freedom. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage provided by independent sources. This is an important article for the subject of Conservatism in the United States. Capitals00 (talk) 11:36, 22 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naty Bernardo[edit]

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

Notability per WP:NACTOR has not been established. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that notes her career as a villain in Filipino cinema and includes a photo of her. It would be great to find more coverage but she seem to meet WP:FILM for having played a lead role in many major films. Keep FloridaArmy (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dial911 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actress played in many major plilipino films. These don't currently have a page on wikipedia because of the low amount of philipino editors. These might be added later, and having the page of a notable philipino actess from this time period could definitely make them easier to be integrated in wikipedia.198.103.182.130 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with 198.103.182.130. It appears that she is a notable actress who appeared in important films, but as someone notable in non-English language films from past decades, there is less to actually prove her notability in English sources. There are mentions, e.g., https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2017/07/29/1722812/never-too-old, but nothing clearly in English, that I have found, that proves it. However, looking at the Filipino Wikipedia, it appears that some of her films, at least, are notable. Hence, I think that the article should be kept and additional references added. TL;DR: WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 21:21, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Eskelson[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 06:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete a biography of a living person lacking any reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's had many named roles in movies, plays and popular television series. The problem with the article was a lack of any reliable sources to actually verify any facts. I've added several newspaper entries, reviews, listings, etc, which verify some of the roles. I believe she now passes for WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article was significantly expanded on 20:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) (diff).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NACTOR, article now reflects this, thanks to Lonehexagon. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR, only minor roles. GretLomborg (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NACTOR. As a single example, Evie in To Sir, with Love II is not a minor role. Ross-c (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hi GretLomborg, i wonder if you mean "insignificant" rather than "minor" as an actor can have a minor role in a movie/tv show that nevertheless is pivotal to the entire show (cant think of any at the moment, im sure other editors can give us some examples:)), anyhow i will not be presumptious and change your wording ps. my "keep" above is because i believe she has been in a number of significant non-minor roles. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 21 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! 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paskakaupunni[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search that supports notability Dom from Paris (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gannerismus (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cant find it. Szzuk (talk) 13:19, 24 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. Sandstein 11:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mimer SQL[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent reliable sources that have significant coverage. Lots of one-off mentions in books and one short article on macworld.com. -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found database entries for few books/short publications about Mimer. I don´t have access to these, so can´t judge their quality (or independence): [26], [27], [28], [29] Pavlor (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. The coverage in books and articles satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article makes insufficient claim of notability, the refs in the article are primary 404s, the refs supplied above are behind a paywall. Szzuk (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck own vote per comment below. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment, Notable for IANA registered port 1360 to be found in the /etc/services file of a significant number of *NIX computers.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:30, 8 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) 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~Comment, article has been improved since original listing, lede has additional notbability claims and should not be be modified to simply amplify the amplify the claims, not all citations are primary and any 404's have been resolved via wayback, the comment about references being behind a paywall is minorly relevant and references behind a paywall are acceptable, WP:PAYWALL. The software is still having new being developed after 30 years which is somewhat impressive. To prevent any doubt I am confident to take this to WP:DRV if necessary and should that fail would request draftification for improvement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one extra relist to see if we can save this from NC. Grateful for views on improved notability through editing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SQL. The article looks like a cross between an advert and in-universe software development that has minimal encyclopedic value. Now I've thought about it again a merge/redirect to SQL wouldn't be a terrible idea, it is already mentioned there so I've struck my delete vote. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Oppose Merge (to SQL). See primarily reasons given in comments above (I've struck the keeps to comments to ensure not double voting). An in-universe (fictional) software development this is certainly not. I cannot see any significant merge to the high-importance SQL article that would not disrupt the latter, we must also remember Mimer SQL is a product and a company not a language (though it does have dialects) which might mean a forced fit unless say all products such as SQL-Server were treated similarly. Such a merge also would likely lead to a non-notability claim and removal of Miner-SQL from that article, so merge will be akin to a medium term delete. Quite frankly I can't plausibly see anything arising to make me change my position significantly so I think unfortunately this will have to head to a non-consensual close. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I'm also against merging this to SQL — that article should be about the language, and perhaps discussing dialects to some extent, but not about database management systems.

@Djm-leighpark: Without seeing the sources listed by Pavlor (talk · contribs), it's difficult to tell how substantial the coverage is. For instance, the first one is listed as a "book", but then has just 17 pages. So it's most likely a thesis rather than book. Those are considered reliable if they have appeared in an established peer-reviewed journal, which does not appear to be the case. And while it's possible they satisfy the letter of the notability guideline, I'd argue that if they're not accessible to current Wikipedia contributors, they don't satisfy the spirit, which is bringing a verifiable article to Wikipedia.

Also three out of four of those are written in 1984-1988 about the "MIMER database management system" developed at unversities. I also cannot find any reliable sources linking the "MIMER database management system" and the commercial "Mimer SQL" product, so if anything, this article should be about the university version.

As for the current state of the article, I see many primarily primary sources from mimer.com, then the short MacWorld/PCWorld article I mentioned, then an advertorial at CIOReview.com with Mimer CEO (they specialise in those), and two theses published by university press and not peer-reviewed journals. Really nothing that unambiguously passes the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:RS. So I stand by my nomination for now. -- intgr [talk] 18:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rather hoped someone else would add to that last comment first but no-one has. I've worked the Mimer SQL pages a bit more. WP:GNG and WP:RS are guidelines, but very good guidelines. WP:COMMONSENSE is saying with the wide range of references it is reasonable to ask 'What is Mimer SQL?' especially if some system was dumped in my lap as an IT person .. and I'd hope Wikipedia would give me some kind of clue. I am always concerned about being restrictions from developing content ... I appreciate the good faith suggestion Sticking to the 'University version' is in good faith but the content restriction means both the ongoing story cannot be explained well and the set of viable references reduces and then should there be a separate article for the commercial version and then should it be merged ... indeed the restriction would exclude an International Journal of Computer Science and Technology reference from June 2012 that from a journal that at least self claims to be peer reviewed. There is also the possibility argument the presence of Mimer on the /etc/services file of some Linux distributions also technically satisfies WP:GNG and WP:RS but even I have a life rather than having the scrutinisers going through that argument ... apart from that totally relying on it might set a bad precedent. Looks like a close of 'No Concensus' here would stop contributors especially me wasting effort.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:15, 25 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! 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axtone Records[edit]

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Axwell, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. KingAndGod 09:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:10, 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 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have gone through and targeted all the biggest dance music DJ's record labels for deletion by labeling them "vanity labels". While such labels exist, this label does not apply to Axtone (and the others you have selected). It is a disservice to Wikipedia to be so dismissive without doing adequate research. While Axwell as a notable artist confers some notability to the label, this is only a small part its importance. Axtone is a significant and influencial labels in dance music in its own right and has released some of the most important records in the electronic music world.^[1]. The label itself will even have its own stage in the 2018 Tomorrowland (festival), one of the largest music festivals in the world^[2].^[3]. While this article (and the other articles you have selected for deletion) should be improved and updated, they should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walru5hunterofficial (talk • contribs)

References

^ "Axwell's Axtone celebrates 100th release with new track 'Come Together'". Dancing Astronaut.
^ "RELIVE CLASSIC AXTONE MOMENTS AS LABEL ANNOUNCE 2018 TOMORROWLAND STAGE". We Rave You.
^ Mukherjee, Nikita. "10 Of The Biggest EDM Festivals To Attend Before You Die". MensXP.

@Walru5hunterofficial: This label has no notability as a separate entity. Notability is not inherited. On Wikipedia, reliable sources are needed to verify claims and establish notability. KingAndGod 10:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KingAndGod: Again, as in the discussion about Armind, it seems you didn't actually read my comment. Axtone IS a significant and influential label in dance music in its own right and has released some of the most important records in the electronic music world.^[1]. The label itself (as a distinct and separate entity from Axwell and his music) will even have its own stage in the 2018 Tomorrowland (festival), one of the largest music festivals in the world^[2].^[3]. Other labels with stages include Spinnin' Records and Monstercat. If this doesn't confer notability status to a label, I don't know what does. There are tens of thousands of labels in electronic music and only a very select few deserve mention in Wikipedia, consult any source on EDM and you will find Axtone's importance and catalogue to be paramount. While this article should be improved, updated and cited, they should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walru5hunterofficial (talk • contribs)

References

^ "Axwell's Axtone celebrates 100th release with new track 'Come Together'". Dancing Astronaut.
^ "RELIVE CLASSIC AXTONE MOMENTS AS LABEL ANNOUNCE 2018 TOMORROWLAND STAGE". We Rave You.
^ Mukherjee, Nikita. "10 Of The Biggest EDM Festivals To Attend Before You Die". MensXP.

@Walru5hunterofficial: I understand your claim that it's an influential label but there should be reliable sources to back it. Merely asserting significance is not enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is an organization so its relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. The notability criteria is strict for companies and organizations and there should be in-depth coverage of reliable sources about the subject. KingAndGod 04:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT. Walru5hunterofficial, do you have any sources to back up your claim that the label is "influential" and "important"? Of the three references that you have provided in this thread, the WeRaveYou site is a promotional marketing website, the MensXP article doesn't mention Axtone at all, and the Dancing Astronaut article is suspect as the writer is only a freelance contributor to the website... his full-time job is working for the marketing department of the music group that Axtone has a publishing deal with, so he isn't an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCOPR & significant RS coverage not found. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 21 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! 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armind[edit]

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Armin van Buuren, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. KingAndGod 09:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 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 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armada Music is one of, if not the largest and most important dance labels in EDM,^[1] and Armin van Buuren is one of the most notable DJs in the world. Armind is an extremely important imprint for both parties and is held in high regard in the music world. It is commonly highly ranked separately from Armada, so its notability is not only by association therefore this is not a case of WP:CORP.^[2]. While this article should be improved, it should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walru5hunterofficial (talk • contribs)

References

^ PAPADATOS, MARKOS. "Review: Armada and Armin van Buuren are big winners at 2018 IDMA awards". Digital Journal. Retrieved April 12, 2018.
^ "THE BEST DANCE MUSIC RECORD LABELS OF 2015 [READER POLL]". EDM sauce. Retrieved April 12, 2018.

@Walru5hunterofficial: the article is about Armind not Armada or van Buuren. This sublabel has no notability as a separate entity. Notability is not inherited. KingAndGod 10:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KingAndGod:You clearly didn't read my comment. Armind is held in high regard in the music world and highly ranked SEPARATELY from Armada, its notability is NOT only by association therefore this is not a case of WP:CORP.^[1]. While this article should be improved, it should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walru5hunterofficial (talk • contribs)

References

^ "THE BEST DANCE MUSIC RECORD LABELS OF 2015 [READER POLL]". EDM sauce. Retrieved April 12, 2018.

@Walru5hunterofficial: Merely asserting significance is not enough. There should be in-depth coverage of reliable sources that discuss Armind as a company. KingAndGod 04:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT. No evidence to back up the claim that this label is "held in high regard", and coming second on a readers poll doesn't demonstrate notability. Not notable just because of its association with van Buuren or with Armada Records, and no reliable sources discussing its notability as an individual entity. Richard3120 (talk) 23:20, 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! 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Can't see any credible claim of notability here, bearin in mind that notability is not inherited. TheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn't appear to be notable in her own right, and does not inherit notability from her family members. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is sourced and it's an arab princess. We English speakers may have less sources but still seems notable in her national context. Yug (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she made the respected press today by running away [30] Szzuk (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her identically named sister ran away, so I have struck my own vote. Szzuk (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There might be some confusion as this article is not about the princess who ran away, but about her identically named half-sister. I think. I'm not sure if being an Arab Princess is enough for notability, without something else. Ross-c (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication of notability of this third Latifa, the so-called Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (III) the daughter of the senior wife Hind bint Maktoum bin Juma Al Maktoum. There is also Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (I) daughter of the Lebanese-born wife called Delila Aloula. And no, Arab princesses as in UAE are not notable on their own. But if this has to stay, it should be differentiated from the very notable Latifa, who is Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II) actually, the daughter of the Algerian-born wife of Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum called Huriyah Ahmed Al M'aash (or Lem'aash) . werldwayd (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources about this individual really do not suffice to establish notability. As Werldwayd rightly says, UAE Arab princesses are not notable simply by virtue of that fact. As the nominator rightly says, notability is not inherited. MPS1992 (talk) 23:28, 22 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! 22:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Robles[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written more like a campaign brochure than a proper encyclopedia article, of a person notable primarily as a mayor of a suburb. As always, mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist, but must be reliably sourced as the subject of significant media coverage to become includable -- but the only sources present here at all are his own primary source biographies on the city's own website and the website of a utilities board he also served on, neither of which are independent of him for the purposes of establishing that he passes a notability criterion. This article appears to exist mainly to keep him from getting confused with Albert T. Robles, a different person of the same name who was previously convicted on criminal charges but was having some elements of this Albert Robles' biography incorrectly conflated with his, rather than because this Albert Robles's own notability has been properly demonstrated. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly source that he's notable enough -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep -- Does no one engage in WP:BEFORE anymore? This guy is super-notable, mostly because of his legal and ethical problems, none of which are presently reflected in the article. However, the sources in the article are irrelevant. As is well-known, it's the sources in the world which determine notability. For Mr. Robles, we have stuff like: LA times article January 2016 on County DA suing the guy, May 2014 LA Times article on entirely different DA probe of the guy, January 2016 LA Times article on the guy in relation to stadium-building in LA, August 2016 Daily Breeze coverage of the two-offices DA Probe issue again, October 2016 Daily Breeze coverage of state-level campaign finance problems, idiotic Daily Breeze endorsement which, no matter how bad for the people of ~~Torrance~~ Carson, is still a factor in the guy's notability, December 2016 LA Times coverage of his campaign finance problems. So he passes GNG, clearly. Nom's argument, based on the sources in the article and their speculations about the purpose of the article are not reasons for deletion. Nom ought to withdraw this AfD. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. For some reason, probably of hasty typos, I did not come across those articles. And there are more out there. I remove myself from this discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above with the huge amount of sources, there is clear notability. --DTM9025 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:NPOL and being WP:TNT eligible. A local politician of marginal notability is covered in local press; the probes seem to be rather minor (i.e. not of the kind "we must keep this article"). As the article currently stands it's a promotional BLP; no value to the project. No objection to recreation if can be done with proper sources, but let's not keep such sub-par articles if noone is willing to improve it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article currently reads like crap, please fix it with reliable sources to make it look worthy of keeping. Acnetj (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. The sources shown above only deal with him in his professional capacity and do not bootstrap him into notability IMO. SportingFlyer talk 02:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment at all. What capacity do you expect sources to deal with him in? Like he's written about in Major newspapers like the LA Times and you're saying they only write about him because of his job so it doesn't mean he's notable? What are you basing that theory on? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me the LA times is a notable publication. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-albert-robles-fines-campaign-20161219-story.html Article by the FBI. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2007/january/cityhall_010807 Infamous is still famous. Looking at WP:POLITICIAN, I think he meets description (of notability) 3. I.e.: 'Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".' Ross-c (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think his coverage is well beyond that of most local mayors. But the article as written needs to be seriously edited to reflect that. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I spent some time doing some Serious cleanup, adding most of the above sources (the FBI one if for a different mayor) and a few others (sexual assault, NFL push, early career etc.). ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added even more sources (13 in total now), his connection to Albert T. Robles (who our Robles represented) and his campaign for Campaign for Los Angeles County District Attorney. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:49, 21 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! 18:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talal Malik (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

CEO of some non-notable company. cited references are either namechecks in newspapers or self published articles in some newspapers. this is some promotional BLP on a subject which does not appear to meet GNG at all. Saqib (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thank you Saqib for highlighting issues, I neutralized the text removed self published articles, although they were only to highlight the contributions. Moreover, I added new sources from reliable sources. All sources cited are worlds top tier newspapers and media houses, please suggest and explain further issues if any. Thank you Kevin055 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Kevin055 is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I am not satisfied. --Saqib (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is more satisfactory? I again added more from The Guardian, Arabian Business, a book citation and some other reliable sources. It easily passes WP:GNG and maybe more. All sources confirms his existence and notability within the region. Kevin055 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. --Saqib (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources are different than existence, please don't focus on my word existence. The article you attached is totally opposite of the citations, please take some time to at least read them. Within a minute of my update you attached this article I think you should at least check and read the sources.

If these highly credible sources writing about someone and his contributions doesn't proves significant coverage then I guess thousands of articles present on Wikipedia should be deleted who doesn't cite any sources yet exist. These are the best reliable sources of that region that are most trusted. I expect you at least check sources instead of replying and denying my edits rights away. I really appreciate your efforts, please help me cover issues if any. Kevin055 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had duly checked each and every cited reference before nominating this article for deletion. While some of the newspapers are RS but none discuss the subject in depth and in-detail.--Saqib (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Google search on individual demonstrates GNG here. Article can be expanded as over 19 links in references. Arabic links also can be added as well, based on King Salman of Saudi Arabia links, and photo too. --Simone2049 04:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC) — Simone2049 (talk • contribs) only made edits to this topic due to the sole engagement of one user, Saqib, but has indeed made other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You seems to have joined WP just a couple of days ago and you've already begin contributing to AfDs. Seriously? I repeated what I said above, cited references are either namechecks in newspapers or some unreliable self published sources such as LinkedIn.. There's no point in saying about the hits via Google search results. If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them. Where are Arabic links? share them here and try to establish the WP:N.. --Saqib (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, and let's focus on the articles with more deliberation, less haste. Article easily passes WP:GNG, as interviews, not namechecks, in order of references cited are The Guardian in UK, Financial Times in UK but on Saudi, and The National on China. 'Unreliable self-published sources' such as LinkedIn, only one reference to LinkedIn in article, though article has two direct references to Al-Arabiya profile, which is globally reliable and not-self published. In response to, 'If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them,' earlier view provided was 'Article can be expanded as over 19 links in references'. On Google, first page, third link shows another profile on Arab News, not included in article: http://www.arabnews.com/taxonomy/term/12386. On Arabic links, I don't speak Arabic - Elina might help as her native language. --Simone2049 08:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree GNG is not met. Guardian story only name check the subject and quote him. The story does not discuss about him at all. I cannot access FT because it require subscription but I'm sure it namecheck as well. Similarly, The National also namecheck the subject and quote him. This Al Arabiya reference is considered self-published and not reliable. This Arab News is not some profile at all. In-fact this is not a reference at all. It is a list of articles the subject has written for the publication and generally such kind of stuff we do not cite in our articles. I think you need to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:GNG. You're failed to convince me. Try again. --Saqib (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, would recommend more deliberation, and less haste, and less appeals to the stone. Guardian story is about the new Crown Prince in Saudi - it's an interview with subject specifically related to that, so not a namecheck. The Financial Times is a global top-tier newspaper, regardless of whether it can be accessed by subscription or not and therefore certainty should not be claimed, but firmly established. The National is an interview on China, which takes place at the global business and political forum, World Economic Forum. Recommended to read and understand opinion-editorial versus self-published [31]] as Al-Arabiya, like Arab News references, is not self-published as a blog, but an opinion-editorial page like Project Syndicate for more nuanced understanding of WP:GNG. Simone2049 (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've made my points and I leave it upto the closing admin to decide whether the cited sources are enough to establish the WP:N or not. The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, and as mentioned, think that the article is well-sourced as per WP:GNG, which exceeds WP:N description. On my earlier Arabic comment, this profile on the subject on al-Iqtisadi was shared with me kindly by an Arabic speaker. Al-Iqtisadi is owned by Haykal Media which publishes Harvard Business Review Arabia and also a Who's Who for the Arab World, which subject is in. I'll now defer to closing admin, too, based on existing and new material. Simone2049 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat trivial coverage is not enough to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I feel like this nomination is wildly inappropriate. The sources already in the article are far more than enough to meet the GNG. User:Saqib even admits that they haven't read all the sources, but nevertheless are sure they're trivial in that they're "sure it namecheck as well."192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wildly inappropriate nom? Seriously ? I don't want to talk about your bizarre arguments all over the AfDs. And regarding this FT source, see what I found [32]. Just a namecheck, and Nothing significant. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are uniformly policy based, although I can understand how that might strike you as bizarre. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are numerous signs of undisclosed paid editing here. Can we please relist while I look into it more? SmartSE (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HorseManJack. SmartSE (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in reliable sources is extremely brief, only mentioning him in passing. I have searched for other sources but have not found anything to indicate that WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: sock checking
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment the CU came back negative, by I am 100% sure that the article was created for pay, making the !votes suspicious. SmartSE (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is definitely some shenanigans going on here. --Saqib (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how SmartSE may have inadvertently admitted his status as someone who solicits money to edit on Wikipedia, despite not being legally allowed to as an admin on Wiki, as his 100% claim is immediately suspicious. How only earth could he state he is 100% sure but then remain silent about this for a week and then only post it before the seven-day period on the AfD was up?. He was either solicited or wasn't. If he was solicited, he's just admitted contravening Wiki's rules as an admin. If he wasn't solicited, how is he 100% sure? I would recommend Spartaz investigates this as a matter of urgency. Look above to how there is only an 18 minute difference in SmartSE and former AfD frontman Saqib, - looks embarrassingly and amusingly highly co-ordinated. Shenanigans, indeed! Simone2049 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic stuff
)) Note I was been in an accident so came here late. So, this is very shameful from such an experienced editors like Smartse and Saqib. All of their self assumptions and claims failed yet they are taking this way to personal. user:Smartse why you deleted my approved and reviewed article of Alpha1Corp? Have you ever read policies? It clearly indicates that A7 doesn't apply to such articles who are mentioned even in passing on reliable sources. Therefore, I request you to put and AFD on that if you are personally hurt from the creation of these articles and stop violating Wikipedia policies and respect good faith and don't act like a God. All your false allegations failed badly, Saqib is saying to Simone2049 that don't accuse him (on sock page) while he himself doing that. @Spartaz: Everything is pretty much clear here you relisted the AFD because of Sock investigation therefore, I request to close this AFD as keep. And help me retrieve my other article deleted by him illegally. Above all he speedy deleted A7 an approved article. Also, investigate why Smartse jumped here and what is the connection between Saqib and him why they are violating Wikipedia policies and taking things personally. He is 12 year o;d user yet never read the policies like WP:SIGNIFICANCE he said it doesn't meet significance while it was. Please launch AFD, take it easy help new users learn and contribute. @192.160.216.52: I don't know who you are but I know you know policies more than these users here, please help. Should I seek help from the legal team or librarians? Their activities are suspicious and they are hurting the very cause of Wikipedia. Kevin055 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] @Kevin055: Please read WP:AGF. Do not comment on other users or speculate about their motives - it is entirely uncalled for. The only relevant issue here is whether the person who is the subject of the article is notable or not. --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic stuff

))

Note I was been in an accident so came here late. So, this is very shameful from such an experienced editors like Smartse and Saqib. All of their self assumptions and claims failed yet they are taking this way to personal. user:Smartse why you deleted my approved and reviewed article of Alpha1Corp? Have you ever read policies? It clearly indicates that A7 doesn't apply to such articles who are mentioned even in passing on reliable sources. Therefore, I request you to put and AFD on that if you are personally hurt from the creation of these articles and stop violating Wikipedia policies and respect good faith and don't act like a God. All your false allegations failed badly, Saqib is saying to Simone2049 that don't accuse him (on sock page) while he himself doing that. @Spartaz: Everything is pretty much clear here you relisted the AFD because of Sock investigation therefore, I request to close this AFD as keep. And help me retrieve my other article deleted by him illegally. Above all he speedy deleted A7 an approved article.

Also, investigate why Smartse jumped here and what is the connection between Saqib and him why they are violating Wikipedia policies and taking things personally. He is 12 year o;d user yet never read the policies like WP:SIGNIFICANCE he said it doesn't meet significance while it was. Please launch AFD, take it easy help new users learn and contribute. @192.160.216.52: I don't know who you are but I know you know policies more than these users here, please help. Should I seek help from the legal team or librarians? Their activities are suspicious and they are hurting the very cause of Wikipedia. Kevin055 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin055: Please read WP:AGF. Do not comment on other users or speculate about their motives - it is entirely uncalled for. The only relevant issue here is whether the person who is the subject of the article is notable or not. --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage in independent sources, only passing mentions in articles about other subjects. Even if the company he is the CEO of were notable, that would not affect his notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED. (The company clearly isn't notable however, so that isn't a concern in any case.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Of the nine sources that I have access to, one is based on an interview with him, three report something that he has said, one reports that he "declined to comment", three merely mention him, and one does not mention him. Maproom (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access the Financial Times article through work, so I can confirm that it is another instance of a brief mention of something he said, compressed into a short two-sentence paragraph (about 45 words in a 680-word article). --bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. I can find no article that discusses the man, just mentions, a quote and a declination to comment. Dbfirs 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. Look at the embarrassingly coordinated editing. With no delete votes on this subject in nearly a week on this page, suddenly three come along in the space of 26 minutes! First, bonadea posts at 15:42, then Maproom at 15:58, and then Dbfirs at 16:08. Three buses may come along at once, but not in 26 minutes, when they haven't been coming for a week! This is amusing, but it's now getting tedious. Simone2049 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were you not aware of Kevin055's post at the Teahouse that drew everyone's attention to the article? My purpose in looking at the article was to see whether Kevin and yourself and others were being unjustly treated, but I found no evidence. Dbfirs 05:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll take that as a vindication. I was initially accused of being a sockpuppet, then when that was cleared, I was accused of being very effective at coordinated editing. Yet, to answer your question, I am completely unaware of the post at the Teahouse, so if I am coordinating editing, then it's abysmal, worse than that which others have been doing. Simone2049 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Dbfirs has guessed, my attention was drawn to the article by the posting to the Teahouse. To anyone familiar with Wikipedia's policy on notability, the article is a clear delete. Simone2049, what was it that drew your attention to the article or to this discussion? Maproom (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question and comment. So, if was a clear delete, why did it take a week for it to only have one delete advocate? Surely, by that token, it should have been a speedy delete? As for your question: I like AfD listings that I consider 'keeps' to include which include Peter Middlebrook, Karl-Erivan Haub, George Saghir, Nicolette Rankin, Raymone Bain, Tony Wood, Hassan Abdalla Talal Malik (entrepreneur), Siddiqui Memon and Valerie Mars. Top three picks to keep are Peter Middlebrook, Tony Wood and Nicollette Rankin. Two billionaires to keep are Karl-Erivan Haub and Valerie Mars, if only for scrutiny. The most amusing is Siddqui Memon but the biggest issue I have been involved in has been the story around Talal Malik (entrepreneur). It all started just from a one sentence 'Keep' on 15 April, to quite a big issue on this page, when in reality, I just posted one comment like I do on all AfDs I like. I've been subject to Ad Hominem attacks, subject to a sockpuppet investigation, being vindicated of that, then accused of coordinated editing, and then demonstrated to clearly not do that. What is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that there is paid editing to actually delete, not keep, the article, for whatever reason, in order to avoid scrutiny. I think that is a red-flag in the same ways I think US billionaires like Valerie Mars or Syrian government advocates like George Saghir should also be subject to scrutiny with their levels of personal wealth.Simone2049 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant and weak delete None of the cited sources discuss the suibject in anything like the needed depth to establish notability. Quotes from him and interviews with him do not help. But given the kind of sources that have quoted him, I rather suspect that he is in fact notable, if only the correct sources can be found and cited here. I will reverse this view if such sources are brought to my attention. I also was attracted to this discussion by the Teahouse post, by the way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've reviewed all the sources, and see nothing but casual namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires.
For my part, I'm also disturbed at the clear lack of good faith shown by the likes of Simone2049, and would be darkly amused at how readily she tosses out accusations at other editors but is shocked! shocked! that she's been challenged in return, if I hadn't seen such behavior at AfD about five hundred times before. For the record, Simone, of the seven editors advocating deletion, the least prolific editor among us has over two hundred times as many edits as you and Kevin have managed combined, and indeed I bettered your total in the last week, in be a light month for me, so you'll perhaps forgive me if I'm more likely to credit the experience and knowledge of editors with many years of proven editing behind them. Ravenswing 17:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to lack of good faith, and tossing out accusation: "I've been subject to Ad Hominem attacks, subject to a sockpuppet investigation, being vindicated of that, then accused of coordinated editing, and then demonstrated to clearly not do that." It looks like there is a consensus emerging to delete, which was the reverse of the first week of this article, and the sole voice to delete was the AfD nominator (who has subsequently disappeared). Better rather this time and energy was spent on improving entries like Peter Middlebrook and Valerie Mars. If you like darkly amusing: Siddiqui Memon. Simone2049 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to spend your time and energy in improving articles, feel free. So far, of your 56 live edits, only two are in article space, and those were changing the capitalization of words in the Middlebrook article. Ravenswing 17:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - just added a missing 'the' to this article, which have avoided doing so previously, though a pet peeve of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone2049 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I've blocked Kevin055 for undeclared paid editing and spamming, and Simone2049 for likely meatpuppetry/coordinated editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are quote, dead link, quote, quote, quote, quote, list of forum participants, quote (as "McKinsey spokesperson"), and tangential reference in preamble. None of these indicate that the subject is notable nor do they support many of the assertions made in the article.--Rpclod (talk) 17:22, 24 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! 22:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SAKSHAM[edit]

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

Non notable, ordinary day to day government initiative. All over the world there are such kind of programs but they are not particularly notable when they're not giving something extraordinary or alike. Lacks sources since creation several years back by now blocked sock puppet. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it was notable it would be easy to find a link supporting this initiative. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:21, 26 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! 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jonze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I deleted this as a speedy G4 in July 2017 on the basis that the first AfD had closed as delete. I have undeleted it as it has now been pointed out to me that there was a second AfD that closed as no consensus in 2014. Embarassingly, I had actually taken part in that AfD but had forgotten. SpinningSpark 18:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article paints a picture of another journo doing his job. Nothing notable there. Search suggests this is entirely true. Lacks coverage about him as opposed to by him. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all the above. Most of the sources in the article (if they're not dead) are proof of the existence of things this guy has written about. That is at least two degrees of separation from notability. He has several professional profiles confirming that he is in fact a music journalist, but little has been written about him as a subject in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jonze has been frequently been a part of news and articles published by The Guardian, Rolling Stone, BBC,[33] HuffPost. Has also received coverage from numerous Google books. Capitals00 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source you link isn't about Jonze himself, it's about the substance of an article that carried his name in NME, that he claims is not what he wrote and asked for his name to be removed. So he CSD'd G7 it in effect, no longer adding to his notability, if it even ever did. No more substantial links you'd like to provide to these "frequent" articles and "numerous" books? SpinningSpark 14:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it passes WP:GNG.[34][35][36] Also meets WP:JOURNALIST since he has been "widely cited by peers or successors".[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] There are over hundreds of reliable sources, if I were to consider sources that make a passing mention or lack exclusive focus like these sources. Prevalence of sources, emphasizing his work demonstrate that notability is not an issue. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the sources you present as evidence of passing GNG. 1. An advert. Adverts are not independent reliable sources. Given that you started this article which led with "Tim Jonze is a journalist for NME and The Guardian" I'm assuming you know Jonze worked with the Guardian. Given that how can you claim that an advert from the guardian is independent? 2. Popsugar. Enough said. A few tweets by Jonze, not about Jonze. No help for GNG. 3. An article in The Guardian. Given that you started this article which led with "Tim Jonze is a journalist for NME and The Guardian" I'm assuming you know Jonze worked with the Guardian. Given that how can you claim that an advert from the guardian is independent? Even ignoring that It's about Ren Harvieu, not about Jonze so no help on GNG. A spectacular fail of demonstrating GNG. And the citing claim. Do you know what citing is? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read what is a WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Even your small analysis of only 3 sources prove that subject is meets notability. Capitals00 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with more content. But frankly saying, comments such as "article paints a picture", "most of the sources in the article", show that none of the "delete" votes have done their homework by doing a simple Google search or making any efforts to check if subject meets notability. Notability doesn't depend on what has been mentioned on an en.wiki article, but what really exists across the world. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try not to make accusations about previous voters. I for one commented on the current state of the article and did a search for better sources. My vote is already recorded and I will leave it at that, but I will say that many (but not all) of the sources you found are still about media matters in which Jonze participated as a journalist, and are not about him specifically. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Occultzone. 1. You've updated the article with more of the same. He is a journo doing his job. Yes he reviews thing, yes he interviews people. That's his job. 2. Please don't call me a liar. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Jonze receives coverage for his work from mainstream sources per WP:SIGCOV. You are deliberately omitting that. Capitals00 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this significant coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Significant coverage from independent reliable sources establishing him as a notable journalist. desmay (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources mentioned here and there. Article needs some expansion but WP:SIGCOV in media and scholarly sources establish notability. My Lord (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A journalist doing a job doesn't automatically transfer notability. Wikipedia would be filled with hundreds of thousands of barely notable journalists. The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article meets WP:JOURNALIST, as seen with the significance of reliable sources noted in the article as well as in this discussion. Journalism doing his job but also receiving coverage from BBC, The Guardian, PopSugar, Spiegel, The New York Times, etc., leaves no doubt regarding notability. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?The significance of reliable sources noted in the article? What's significant about them? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. —MBL ^talk 10:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it clear? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning every policy-based vote won't help you. Capitals00 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A vague wave at a policy is not a policy based argument. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commnent. When I sent this back to AfD I was hoping that the closer would this time do an assessment of whether or not the supporters of this article had plausibly demonstrated GNG's "significant coverage" rather than another wishy washy no consensus close. SpinningSpark 13:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think specific keep arguments would be stronger and this would benefit from citing specific sources rather than what read as vague handwaves and assertions. We have specific sources about him? Right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having looked at many of the sources linked to in comments above, I feel that there is sufficient to show that Jonze is notable. Ross-c (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of passing mentions don't turn into notability. Per analysis of sources by Duffbeerforme above. What happened to GNG's significant coverage - that addresses the topic directly and in detail, and independant coverage? Do suggest the closer to look at the keep arguments and their extreme weakness and WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:ITSNOTABLEness Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you are ignoring the many independent sources, significantly talking about Tim Jonze. I don't see any analysis from Duffbeerforme. Subject easily meets WP:JOURNALIST since he has been "widely cited by peers or successors". Can you provide an argument against it? Or you are just cherrypicking WP:GNG? It says: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Tim Jonze meets that requirement per [49][50][51][52][53][54] and other dozens of sources. Subject has been mentioned or discussed in not only independent media but also academic sources easily fulfills criteria of notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. There is enough coverage in independent WP:RS,[55][56][57] including the links from Google books that have been provided above. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:43, 26 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! 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva (1864)[edit]

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

It possibly existed, and nothing is known about it... So why exactly is this an article? Clearly not notable. I'm going to nominate several other articles about non-notable ships in the coming days, as there are many articles about similar subjects. 😎HellaswagdabXD😎emoji😎^Talk 18:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research or speculation. I read the reports by James Teer but I cannot conclude that there was definitely a ship named Minerva. Neither do I find any other mentions in historical sources. To preserve accuracy, Wikipedia should only report what has been already researched and published. Till someone researches this topic, I would suggest this article stay deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Based on new evidence, I am changing my opinion.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. No Minerva listed in Lloyd's Register for 1863, 1864 or 1865. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting but not enough evidence to justify an article Lyndaship (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree- the mystery is interesting, its just to little of an article.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 18:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found it!. Per later sources - [58][59][60] - "Minerva of Leith" was shipwrecked on 10 May 1864, four survivors rescued 25 March 1865.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the WP:RS now fully support the stub. XavierItzm (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think it qualifies; It existed, sure, but the first and third sources still give little information, while the second one is noted to be unverified. Great work on finding those sources though, I would have never been able to find them.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 11:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Money emoji: - the question in my mind is whether we have a list of shipwrecks this would be a good merge to - perhaps List of shipwrecks of Oceania?Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is a New Zealand section on there, so that would be the ideal place to merge.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or the List of shipwrecks in 1864? Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - either is fine for me.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 18:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of shipwrecks in 1864, based on new evidence. I really appreciate the effort by Icewhiz to find the information. I guess we can add it to the list and maintain a redirect.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of shipwrecks in 1864. Does not sustain a standalone article at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh The boxes on that page don't seem to work, and it considers the code for a new box actual text, so it just messes up the boxes.. Maybe its just my terrible computer, but I think merging or adding any new ships to that page is impossible. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Money emoji: - I entered it there - works in the source editor, do not know about the visual.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. I was using the source editor, though, not the visual editor, and did exactly what you did...... Whatever, its in there now.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article on the General Grant (ship) as the article relates to an item found by its crew while marooned on Enderby Island. A check of New Zealand newspapers of the period do not show any wrecked or missing ships named the Minerva wrecked in the time period. If there was one it would be noted. There were two other wrecks in the vicinity - (Grafton and Invercauld) which could explain the item. There were no reports of a rescue of sailors in 1865 from a ship called Minerva and all the references cited by Icewhiz appear to be based on the General Grant crews account. NealeFamily (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now more thoroughly checked the references used by Icewhiz and found that all rely on the story by James Teer of the General Grant. The second source cited and published in 1907 refers to its author being unable to corroborate the sinking of a ship called the Minerva. I can only conclude that the article found was from the Invercauld which sank on 10 May 1864 at that location. I do not support it being added to the List of shipwrecks in 1864 as there is no reliable evidence to substantiate the Minerva's existence. The rightful place for the story is under the General Grant NealeFamily (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are no other sources, including Lloyd's or other reports, for the sinking of a ship called Minerva. Nonetheless, my preceding sentence is WP:OR!!! Just as much as your (possibly correct) contention that "the article found was from the Invercauld". More WP:OR! Original research has no place on Wikipedia. Absent WP:RS that unequivocally dispute the existence and sinking of the Minerva, it would be a WP:POLICIES violation to substitute your WP:OR or mine for the following fact: Icewhiz found two rock-solid WP:RS which state witness claims for the sinking of the Minerva. Respect for policies and sources requires keeping the article, until other reliable sources disprove the facts. XavierItzm (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid WP:OR you need to look at the three sources Icewhiz cites as supporting the existence of the Minerva. All three rely on James Teer's chronicle from the Southland Times of 15 January 1868 - https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST18680115.2.9. In the newspaper article he states .. we found .. a stave which was written with charcoal the words "Minerva .... The writer, Teer, and the subsequent publications all rely on this stave as evidence for the existence of a ship called Minerva being wrecked. There is no other evidence. The second source cited by Icebiz and published in 1907 refers to its author being unable to corroborate the sinking of a ship called the Minerva. No original research is needed to cast doubt on the ships existence. This second source is the WP:RS that does that = see the footnote on page xxvii - https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/44371#page/31/mode/1up

Just for clarity, I agree my contention that it was most likely the Invercauld is speculative by myself and therefore WP:OR. My argument is that there is insufficient evidence for a standalone article on a ship that most likely does not exist or is at best one of mistaken identity. NealeFamily (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying this was Invercauld would be OR (without a source. And I'll note that this would've been a very small boat or ship with a 5 man crew - if it existed - not a large noteworthy vessel either way). It seems some sources were convinced that this alleged ship existed or possibly existed (there are a few more than repeat this - but don't have preview - I think I saw this in parliamentary records too) - enough to list it. It seems that if we are to retain (in a list) the Minerva - we should place the equivalent of an asterisk next to it - saying this is based on so and so, and that there are some doubts.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure 5 man boat would be sailing that far south unless they had a death wish. Anyway, I agree that saying it was the Invercauld would be OR. It would not be OR if you stated the Ínvercauld was wrecked on the same day. As to there being other records, that may well be true but all those that I have found to date are referenced back to the statement by James Teer. There is no other source that pre-dates his statement or references to some other evidence as far as I can find. If you have found one let me know. I think putting this in the General Grant (ship) article would retain the story and turning this into a redirect would assist readers. NealeFamily (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. there does not seem to be any confirmable evidence that such a ship ever existed. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the questions over whether or not Minerva existed, so little is known it does not seem worth having its own article when the key details are on List of shipwrecks in 1864. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole thing seems highly speculative. Minerva ... Leith suggests to me a vessel whose home port was near Edinburgh in Scotland. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translatathon[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. This could perhaps find a home outside of mainspace somewhere. Pontificalibus 06:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. Szzuk (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the word might be newish, but mass translation marathonlike events aren't. This seems expandable and notable. 92.2.70.144 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. Searching Blankathon (you fill in the blank) has numerous results, for all sorts of prefixes (wine-, gym-, wiki-, read- [1.2 million results!], date-, etc.) including even x-rated ones with more results than 'translatathon'. With the exception of a few (tele-, walk-, talk-) these are neologisms. Mathglot (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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditch Borough Council election, 2018[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Local elections in the UK have very rarely demonstrated notability and this is no exception. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been properly referenced, with sources cited. It follows a long history of wikipedia pages for Redditch Council elections. It should stay as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digby2014 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete all of the sources are primary, I don't think this would get enough secondary sources to show notability. There are also a lot of these types of articles by year. Possible merge candidate to the borough council? SportingFlyer talk 05:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Better merge candidate for these election pages: the council elections page, e.g. Redditch Borough Council elections.
Election buffs - perhaps this isn't the right wiki for council data. Documenting these fast-changing data would be easier on a wiki with mw:Extension:Variables, with data based at Wikidata. FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 17:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there are a couple of points here that need to be considered. First the election is about to take place and thus the campaign is ongoing so more information, and possibly evidence of notability, will become available. Second, and more importantly, it has now become common place for there to be article on every local election for District, County and Unitary Authorities in the UK. While I think the merits of this approach could be debated, I wonder if a more general discussion is needed on this rather than debating individual articles in a piecemeal fashion? Dunarc (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of local elections in the UK Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dunarc (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userify~~ i.e. move back to a sandbox or draft space. It seems to be a holding space for a future article, certainly for a future event. Redditch is a very sizeable borough so one would expect coverage of the results and the immediate build up. I can't really see anything of that kind online at the moment. Though if this AfD drags on and is relisted, it may be superseded by events! In which case my 'vote' would probably change to 'Keep'. Sionk (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article was moved to Draft space by JamesBWatson on 7 April but it had been moved back to mainspace by its author by 9 April. With this history it is uncertain whether userfying it would serve much purpose. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll go for Keep then. It's open to question whether so much detail is necessary in the article (i.e. list of all ward election results), but like the preceding articles of a similar nature, this sizeable borough will undoubtedly get coverage of its election by the time this Afd reaches it's conclusion. If the nominator wants to make a point, they should nominate an article about a similar election that has already taken place. Sionk (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not making any point at all. The article appeared in the New Articles feed and all the logical tests and searches produced nothing to support a claim of notability. Hence the AfD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable topic, we just don't keep these articles, a few local refs will turn up as you'd expect of a local election. Szzuk (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2018 per WP:CHEAP. It's clearly notable notable (this is just a small village), but could be useful as a link. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This election has not happened yet, and will not happen till the third of May. When it does happen, it is a virtual certainty that it will satisfy GNG. These elections generally do satisfy GNG (once they have happened). It is reasonable to presume, in the case of any particular election, that sufficient coverage will exist (once it has happened). We always keep these articles (once the election has happened). Deletion is simply out of the question because it would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R (go read WP:POKEMON and imagine a chronological list of the elections of this council). James500 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Put it this way, there is already coverage from the BBC and New Statesman, in particular. Last year, and the year before, there was plenty of coverage from, in particular, newspapers such as the Redditch Standard, the Redditch Advertiser, the Birmingham Mail and so on. There will be sufficient coverage. There always is. James500 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually strongly disagree with this. For instance, running a before search for the current placeholder [[61]] brought up only primary sources. I'm sure there are news articles out there, but the coverage is basically trivial. WP:TOOSOON aside, I don't know why this election would be any different. SportingFlyer talk 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Long-established that district council elections in the UK are sufficiently notable for articles (via AfDs like this or this), hence why we have virtually full sets of articles for many years (see e.g. the contents of Category:English local elections, 2016) and articles on all the elections in Redditch going back to the mid-1990s (Category:Redditch Borough Council elections). Odd claim above that the district of Redditch (population 85,000) is a small village... Number 5 7 06:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 150 councils are electing new councillors, and there are six mayoral contests. Redditch Borough Council is one of the 150 councils. The results will receive all night coverage by the BBC, ITV and Sky (see: 2018 local elections: How the BBC is reporting the results. This should really be a policy WP:PROPOSAL regarding the coverage of UK local elections, otherwise it would mean the deletion of masses of content. It is much too big a question for a single article AfD. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep There is some RS coverage and will be more. Arguments above from Number 5 and The Vintage Feminist also hold. Ralbegen (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57 and The Vintage Feminist. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500. Cavrdg (talk) 08:21, 20 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 Draftify all. There's reasonably good agreement here that this is WP:TOOSOON. A straight reading of the consensus would be to delete these, but the suggestion to draftify just makes too much sense to ignore. It should satisfy the too-sooners, while at the same time preserving the existing work and allowing people to continue to ignore WP:NOTNEWS as they are wont to do anyway. At the appropriate time, the articles can be moved back into mainspace, or renamed should events unfold in that direction. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Bean[edit]

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

These pages have been created in good faith, but too soon. The redistributions in the ACT and Victoria are still at the draft stage, and these new divisions are merely proposals which may or may not be confirmed when the redistributions are finalised in July. The pages violate WP:CRYSTAL. Frickeg (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Undelete if it remains in the finalised redistribution. I've seen at least one petition trying to change the Bean name (which wasn't on the list of submissions) anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a little soon. A proposed electorate is unlikely to be notable. Recreate when/if finalised and actually implemeneted -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, heaps of sources out there in googland that discusses this ie. Sydney Morning Herald - "ACT's new federal electorates revealed", The Australian Financial Review - "Federal electorate shake-up could hand Shorten victory" (short but highlights possible Katy Gallagher issue), RiotACT - "Parties jockey as AEC redistribition proposes new southern seat of Bean for ACT", ABC News - "Labor set to benefit from proposed changes to federal electoral boundaries" (may be deemed a snip), Nine News - "Labor eyes two new proposed federal seats", The Canberra Times - "A never more exciting time - to be in inner Belconnen", 2SER - "Impact of the new federal electoral divisions for the ACT", as for a namechange and/or possibly not going ahead, yeah right, sorry, but there is going to be a third electorate in the A.C.T., the boundaries may not be finalised, these can be amended when finalised, and not being called "Bean" (hah! sportsbet would probably give you 3figure odds:)) an article rename with redirect can be done on the highly unlikely event of this happening (about as likely as the existence of binary blackholes and gravitational waves, oh wait....:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There will be a third seat, but there is no need to rush and create an article based on a preliminary decision. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. When a final decision is made, the article should be created, not based on a draft -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a further point here, if any of these names do not eventuate, they should definitely, unequivocally not be redirects to the final versions. These names would never have existed, and in any event may later be used for totally unrelated divisions. See below for how likely changes are (very, is the answer). Frickeg (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay, if eventual name is different, can be included in a background/history section....Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I agree that these articles were started prematurely, but it's very rare for the electorates formally proposed by the AEC to not eventuate. I think that all that usually changes is their boundaries and very occasionally their names. As such, I don't see any point in deleting the articles, as they'd need to be recreated within a few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a few months minimum, not a few weeks. Currently the AEC is projecting 13 July (three months away) for a final determination. Secondly, I have to dispute the idea that it's rare for electorates proposed to not eventuate. Dramatic changes happen fairly regularly between the initial proposal and the final determination, especially with division names. The obvious example is Flynn in 2007, which was originally supposed to be named Wright before many objections pointed out that that might lead to unlooked-for associations with Keith Wright; the current Wright is completely unrelated. More dramatically, the 2010 WA redistribution saw a huge change: with the realignment of remote divisions, originally Kalgoorlie was meant to be the southern one and O'Connor the northern one, but in the final decision O'Connor became the southern one and the northern one became Durack. The 2010 NSW redistribution originally proposed re-naming Lowe as McMahon and retiring the name of Reid altogether; the final decision retained Reid for Reid-Lowe and renamed Prospect instead. The 2013 Victorian redistribution was essentially completely redone - the original proposed the abolition of Murray and the creation of a new seat of Burke in outer Melbourne, which was completely junked in the final determination. The fact is, if you exclude simple boundary-tinkering redistributions (i.e. Tasmania and NT), a majority of the last decade's redistributions have seen dramatic changes between the first draft and the final determination, especially in division names. Frickeg (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of WP:TOOSOON. If the divisions come into existence, the articles can quickly and easily be restored (I am happy to do so on request). However, if they aren't approved, then they aren't going to be article-worthy. Number 5 7 12:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a third electorate for the ACT was confirmed in August/september last year, and with a number of good references discussing this, an article could have been created over 6 months ago, as it is, they can be included in a "Background/history" section of this article: The Canberra Times - "Electoral Commission confirms ACT gets third federal House of Representatives seat", and "Redistribution consultation begins for third ACT federal seat", RiotACT - "Third federal seat to give Canberrans more electoral punch", The Sydney Morning Herald - "ACT's third federal seat is a big political prize ... but for whom?", ABC News - "ACT, Vic gain MP seat but SA loses one in AEC electorate redistribution", HuffPost - "Australian Electoral Commission Announces Lower House Will Have 151 Seats At Next Election". Coolabahapple (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and so i reckon news, crystal, soon do not apply. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A new seat" and "this specific seat" are not the same thing. And you haven't commented at all on the Victorian ones, which are both renamings. Frickeg (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i cant go back in time to create an article called "Third electorate in the ACT" then rename it to "Division of Bean"

, as for commenting on the Victorian ones, editors do not need to comment on every article of a bundled afd, indeed i could suggest that this afd be closed and recreated separating bean from the others as the majority of this discussion appears to have concentrated on bean only, but i wont. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or draftify, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the new electoral districts are actually finalized. For all the differences between the Australian political system and the one here in Canada, there isn't a significant difference in the way electoral districts get redistributed: the electoral commissions propose new districts, which then get discussed and debated and reviewed, and possibly revised to something significantly different, before they actually become real electoral districts. So we do not keep articles about proposed electoral districts in any country: we start the article only when the process is finished and the new electoral districts are confirmed. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!! the AEC Commissioner determined on 31 August 2017 that the ACT will have an extra seat, the calculation is as follows: population quota for a house of representative seat is 164,788.61806, total population for determination purposes of the ACT at date of calculation was 419,256, divide this by the pop quota equals 2.54420 therefore the AECC has determined that the ACT will have 3 house of reps seats, it is all set out in the AEC media release here, this will occur, it will not change, boundaries and names may be different, but will not change the fact of a third seat for the ACT. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "a new seat" and "this specific seat" are not the same thing. Just because we know that something will happen, in some form or another, is no reason to have an article about one of any number of possibilities before we know what that form will be. Frickeg (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the point. When the third ACT seat is finalised, an article should certainly be created. The 'Division of Bean' is nothing more than a proposal subject to numerous minor, moderate and major change. There is no need to rush to be first to create an article for the third seat. It is simply too soon. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frickeg and Whats new? are correct about this. Sure, it's been determined that the ACT will get a new seat in the redistribution — nobody's denied that. But that new seat's name and boundaries may not line up with this proposal, but may still end up being different from the present draft of the redistribution process — and that's why we wait until the new seats are finalized before we start articles about the confirmed new seats. Nobody's saying there aren't going to be any new seats — but we do not know what the new seats are going to be named or what their boundaries are yet, because the boundaries and names of new seats can change between the preliminary report and the actual final redistribution. For an example from the most recent Canadian redistribution, I do not now live in the same electoral district I would have been living in if the original redistribution proposal had passed — and it's not that I've moved, because I haven't, but that the names and boundaries of the new electoral districts got adjusted between the initial proposal and the final result. So we didn't start new articles about the initial new district proposals — we waited until the representation order was passed into law, and then started new articles about the official new districts that had been legislated as happing for certain. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, (warning: sarcasm alert), yep, the above editors are right, until the details are finalised this article shouldn't exist, similarly with a lot of other WP articles that aren't finalised ie. what countries, teams, people are going to be competing in the following sporting articles - 2020 Summer Olympics, 2022 Winter Olympics, 2022 FIFA World Cup, 2022 Commonwealth Games, 2024 Summer Olympics, 2024, 2026 Winter Olympics, 2026 FIFA World Cup, 2026 Commonwealth Games, 2028 Summer Olympics, 2030 FIFA World Cup, 2034 FIFA World Cup. i look forward to these articles being put up for deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how else to put this. Those are all things that will happen, whereas these seats might happen. There is no question that there will be a 2026 Winter Olympics, but there is a question about whether there will be a "Division of Bean", "Division of Monash" or "Division of Nicholls". It's like how we have an article on the next Australian federal election (because we know it will happen), but not an article on the Australian federal election, 2019 (because there might not be one then).

For what it's worth, I doubt anyone would object to an article about the redistribution itself (since that will happen) including coverage of this proposal, and I've long wondered how best to structure articles about redistributions (should each state/territory get their own or should we lump them all together for the duration of each parliament?). I would love to discuss with you and others ideas on how to deal with this (in addition to the next election page, that would be the appropriate place for this information), but that's a separate discussion. Frickeg (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but there are no details about the events, who is actually going to be playing etc, with this article, whats going to happen when its gone and the numerous interested wpreaders (well maybe half a dozen:)) want to know about this third ACT seat?, heck, who am i kidding? sports events, even if they are 10+ years in the future compared to something political? what was i thinking?

ps. please see my final comment at the end of this afd:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, above looks like the words of a desperate editor drowning in the rising tide of consensus, although...:))Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, you don't seem to understand what I and others have said. The issue supporters of this AfD have is about the TOOSOON aspect. No one is denying there will be new divisions, but creating an article on a proposal about what the new division may be named, its boundaries, etc. is not appropriate. The article fails both WP:N and WP:V until final decisions are announced by the AEC -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i accept the white fluffy stuff that is falling all around here but still reckon article should be kept with possibly a rename to something like "Third seat/electorate? for the ACT" as there is plenty of WP:RS sources about it as i listed above, i would have carried out the rename but wasn't sure that it is allowed while an afd is going on, that said, i would like to send out a big THANKYOU to all the above editors that have shown such patience and civility in the face of my obsessiveness with this subject. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Coolabahapple's citations show that the press is buzzing. OK WP:NOTNEWS but those are reliable sources. That is what we're here for: readers might be looking for objective, sourced, articles on these topics - either now, or in the future.

If the divisions get renamed, or if something else happens, so be it. That's what page moves, renames, merges, and redirects from historical names are for. But, these topics are backed up by hard WP:RS evidence (and I can't say that of every WP article I've ever looked at). Narky Blert (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something has reliable sources does not make the topic notable. There are other considerations. I sincerely doubt anyone is seeking information on a 'possible electorate that might happen' -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Divisions of the Australian House of Representatives#Planned divisions section I just created with most of the info from this article. Now it's saved and ready for a cut and paste to its history section when the new division materializes. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the intent here, I don't think this solution works entirely because all of it would still need deletion in the event these divisions fail to materialise. Frickeg (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. If it fails to materialize, then we add that info with a follow-up source, but the fact that it was planned - at one point in time - will still be true. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been true, but that doesn't make it notable. A planned division never implemented is not notable -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why my solution works so well. The standards for including information in an article are lower than those for having a dedicated article - only one source is required. The redirect preserves the history one way or another. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear - if these divisions do not come to pass, they should not be included on the main divisions page. They could be mentioned briefly on the next election page or in more detail on a dedicated redistribution page (which, as I said above, I'd be more than happy to look at a format for), but in neither case would a redirect be appropriate. Frickeg (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I already put this info into the planned divisions section, all we're talking about now is whether to have a redirect from here to there or not. If we're only talking two months or so before this is resolved, it probably doesn't really matter one way or the other, but IMHO a redirect seems the best way to preserve this properly sourced content while not running afoul of WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information doesn't need to be preserved if it isn't notable. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What a conundrum. Do we delete and recreate in a couple of weeks? Can we relist for two more weeks? Sometimes future events are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Is this notable? It is a mandate that the division be made because by law the number of divisions "must" equal representation. This is discussed in the AEC report under Legislative requirements. As far as I can see (looked breifly because this is basically an expired timeline discussion) there are currently three representatives so must be three divisions. If I am right on this then the only "proposal" is concerning the name, which has not been contested so is more than likely to be the name, and the tweeking of any contested areas to be included in the division. Nothing else is actually open for debate. The "division" will occur and the name, again, as for as I can see, will for more than likely be "Bean". Is this "breaking news"? Not really since it has been ongoing since 2017. Is it WP:Too soon? Not according to The Sidney Morning Herald that states the division will be called "Bean" and includes mapping and decription of the area.

This is not actually a "future" event, and certainly notable to the people of Australia and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) where 20% of the population will be in new areas according to ABC news.

There is an abundance of reliable sources that the division is a given and the name technically (I assume) open to challenge but uncontested. The results will be more "legal" after the May 4, 2018 final comment date and the May 18, 2018 determination date.

I guess since it is a politial and future "historical event" if this is decided to be deleted just userfy it in a draft to me. It will just have to be recreated in less than two weeks when it will be considered "official". Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a given that there will be a new division. It is not yet a given that the division will have this name, or these boundaries. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood quite a lot there - as the indicative timetable makes clear, the final determination will occur not before 13 July. After the objections close on 4 May, there is a further comments-on-objections period that closes on 21 May, then the Commission meets again to determine if the objections have any merit and whether to make changes to the boundaries. If they decide to make further changes (which, as I've shown above, is not uncommon), there is then a further objection period that would push that July date back again.

There are also not "currently" three representatives; there are only two. Three must be elected at the next election due to population changes indicated by the most recent census, but we do not know the form that new seat will take. In fact, should the election be called before the final determination date (extremely unlikely, but not impossible), then this whole redistribution would be scrapped and a makeshift third seat created out of Fenner.

The SMH makes it clear in the first sentence that these are merely "proposed" boundaries, and you cannot say the name is "uncontested" because the objections period hasn't even closed yet so we don't know if any have been submitted (but they will have been - they always are). There has certainly been chatter on Twitter and elsewhere about the name Bean as (a) yet another white male among many many white men with divisions named after him, and (b) suggestions of anti-Semitism particularly in relation to Sir John Monash. Frickeg (talk) 21:15, 29 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. Notable player in Indian subcontinent. (non-admin closure) Dial911 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akilan Pari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a particular reason why you nominated this article, other than personal opinion? Akilan Pari is an internationally recognized athlete who has been featured in tons of newspapers and sports magazines. According to the guidelines you should first check whether an article can be improved rather than deleted. He clearly meets WP:SPORTCRIT. I thought this was very obvious. Stephreef (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as discussed above. Stephreef (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played for Indian national team, thus meeting NBASKETBALL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. WP:GNG must be demonstrated. Rikster2 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is obviously demonstrated.Stephreef (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not from where I sit. If there are tons and tons of articles covering him why don’t you add some more? Rikster2 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the articles about him that I already added? How many more articles do want me to add? Did you even look into the newspaper articles about him before making this statement? How about the article about him in the Indian Express? How about the article about him in Ekalavyas.com? Stephreef (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekalavyas.com The Ekalavyas.com source should be treated as promotional and not independent enough to demonstrate WP:GNG. From their website: "Ekalavyas is a media cum talent management enterprise in India. Starting with non-traditional sports, specifically Indian basketball, Ekalavyas will function in diverse verticals such as media, player representation and event management."[62]—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-colacompany.com This source with mention of Pari is also not independent, as it is promoting a game which that the soda company was sponsoring.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NSPORTS, which does not presume notability for merely being a member of a national basketball team. Not enough significant coverage from multiple, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. I noted the non-independent sources above that are promotional, and not an objective indicator of notability. Otherwise, only the cited The New Indian Express has significant coverage. Otherwise, I could only find trivial mentions online.—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:He is not just a player but the captain of India's national team who has appeared at numerous international tournaments and who has been featured and quoted in newspapers. Expressnews was not even mentioned yet.Stephreef (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t see where he meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources currently in the article satisfy gng. There are around 70 English-language google sources, he's the point guard and captain of his country's team, frequently mentioned as one of the top handful of players in India.Jacona (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that by WP:BOMBARDing the reference list to WP:MASK the lack of notability? Your edit here adds these 3 sources with trivial mentions of him from WP:ROUTINE game coverage. See weak additions here—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - AS the team captain and key player for the national team of the world's second largest country, there shouldn't be any question of his meeting gng. If he played for a smallish European country, we wouldn't be bothering to look at this, but since it's in Asia, here we are.Jacona (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not the country per se, it's the coverage available in that country for a given sport. For example, there isn't much cricket or badminton coverage in the US. Per the guideline WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - And it's also BIAS on language and interests. There's only a little coverage in English, but when it's not an English-speaking country and an American-centric sport, this nominator is ready to delete it even if it's eminently notable, as has been proven many times. Very little effort is given to considering even the English language, easily searchable sources, and zero effort beyond that.Jacona (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample sources in the article and on Google get him over GNG. Not to mention there are almost certainly foreign language ones. Smartyllama (talk) 20:16, 27 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! 22:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Conservatory of Music[edit]

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

Relatively small "conservatory" in Maryland which I do not feel meets WP:GNG. All of the news hits I'm finding are mostly brief mentions (either listing events hosted by MCM or indicating that's where the musicians/teachers are affiliated). Primefac (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, the sole coverage is indeed passing mentions of sponsorships, etc., insufficient to surmount the fundamental hurdle that is WP:ORGCRIT. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this is more than the project of one person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage my search turned up was what I would call routine--local coverage and mentions of upcoming events. I didn't see anything I would classify as significant. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 24 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 Early delete WP:SNOW plus likely hoax per Randykitty. Yaris678 (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Caesar[edit]

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

The article fails to establish the notability of the subject, and lacks references to any WP:RS. He seems to be a fairly prolific author of mainly self-published and rather obscure material, but I can't find the type of in-depth coverage about him which he'd need to pass WP:NAUTHOR (or any other notability criteria). Neiltonks (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, An editor keeps on adding spam links to Goodreads and a google search in an obnoxious manner, trying to cover for the fact that the author isn't notable.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The obvious socking does not help. Apart from Goodreads, I cannot find any good source. --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also Amazon.it holds NO books with that name, and it.wikipedia.org doesn't have an article for this italian writer. The goodreads profile fasinates me - none of the books appear to be availible on amazon, and don't appear on google anywhere that isn't the authors blogspot. Is it an entirely spoof goodreads account? Because that's quite interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joereddington (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats what I would say. All of the title's seem to be jokes. This is basically a troll trying to make an article about himself.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 15:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax As nobody can find anything solid that even confirms that "Ben Caesar" exists, I'm changing my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also less than convinced the claims here are ture. However the claims seem to suggest Ceasar is self-published. Weather his self-published work actually meets the claims I cannot tell, but it does not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 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 redirect restored by article creator. ansh 666 20:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders Sides[edit]

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

Article about a web series without any claim of notability, and without a single reference to anything except the episodes themselves. Slashme (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is not independently notable wouldn't the appropriate outcome be to Redirect to the creator, writer, and star who has an existing article? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per note by FloridaArmy. The series isn't notable, but Thomas Sanders (entertainer) is - might as well redirect to him, at least if a couple more lines were added to the youtube sub-section. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Restore redirect - Up until yesterday it was a redirect to a section in Thomas Sanders (entertainer) who was already stated as a notable creator by independent reliable sources. True that notability is not inherited, but the section was growing big, so I was bold and split the section into its own article as an annex of the original article and reformatted the text for a clearer reading. If necessary, content should have to be reinstated to the original article and reinstate the redirect, but presentation would suffer from it as I wouldn't be able to use the same format inside another article.--Manbemel (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD can be speedily closed, as the article no longer exists. It has been turned back to a redirect to a section of Thomas Sanders (entertainer) as it was before.--Manbemel (talk) 19:16, 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. Socks want to keep. All others (shoes, shirts, neckties) believe this topic is not notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Middlebrook[edit]

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

Delete Written like a CV and appears to me as promotional, references are either based on interviews/quotations or are various papers he assisted with (for his job?). In my opinion, fails the criteria for notability, fails WP:BIO. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rich in content, notability clearly established and meets WP:GNG, but article must be improved from the outset. Some clear basic errors i.e. World Economic Forum and Davos instead of World Economic Forum, Davos. A good example of someone who should have had a profile a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone2049 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC) - struck as sockpuppet !vote[reply]

Certainly rich in content written by the subject, but the superficial referenciness does not actually pass GNG as none of it passes the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why this page should be deleted.

1. It meets the Basic Criteria (WP:BASIC), being a notable individual in various fields and having multiple valid and legitimate sources, hence, it proves notability. It does have Primary Sources, but I do agree it could have more, so an edit can be conducted. But yet again, I see no reason for deletion. P. Middlebrook is also a well-known economist and political scientist — an academic. He has made significant contributions in international & national development, poverty alleviating, and others, it seems. Therefore the page also has legitimacy under: WP:ANYBIO. He seems as a creative professional, an economist, and author. Legitimacy under WP:CREATIVE, WP:ECONOMIST, WP:AUTHOR. I could keep analysing this but it seems pretty straight-forward...the page is fine. Could be edited a bit, but I see no reason for deletion. This page, it seems, has been up and validated for years now, it's rather strange that an user, i.e. "HighKing" has found it in need of deletion. Looking on this users page, the only action that he has conducted was to flag pages for deletion. This, I suppose arises the question about what his motives might be. I presume that since Peter Middlebrook, the individual whose page is in question, is a public figure and known in business, academic, and international circles, some might try to conduct malicious actions towards others. Wikipedia is not the place for that. My vote would be to ~~*Keep~~ keep. --EnzoLeblanc (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — EnzoLeblanc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Three 'keep' votes in a row. I would recommend AfD on page is removed, and notice placed on article to edit and improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone2049 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. It's two "keep" votes, and deletion discussions go on for at least seven days unless there is overwhelming support for one outcome. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' was highlighted in bold three times - am just amused why this is in AfD in any regard. Simone2049 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy seems to have done quite some work in a lot of honourable fields. Sources check out. Why is this article proposed for deletion?

Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:ANYBIO. Things seem in order. Maybe the article can be edited better; that’s surely an idea. No need for it to be deleted. It makes no sense. --CarolDegrasse (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — CarolDegrasse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simone2049 claims "notability clearly established" but provides no reasoning as to why this is so. EnzoLeblanc is an account that appears to have been especially created to comment on this AfD and only has a total of 2 edits (yet appears familiar with WP and policies/guidelines). Nonetheless, they make the point that the individual meets WP:BASIC as "a notable individual in various fields and having valid and legitimate sources", but does not list any sources, and goes on to admin that the article has Primary Sources. The comments as to my motives for deletion are mischievous and without merit - I spend most of my time at AfD these days and I have no other reason to nominate this article for deletion other than it appears to be a puff piece and the purported notability of this individual does not appear to meet the criteria for notability. In a similar vein, the CarolDegrasse account has also been specially created to comment at this AfD and only has this single edit. Even putting aside the highly suspicious commenting at this AfD by newly created accounts, none of the Keep !votes have provided any evidence (beyond their opinion) that this article meets the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I read through the profile and I think he is an adviser to governments as claimed - here is a link to his own website. http://www.petermiddlebrook.com/content.php?pid=1 Frankly, it's embarrassing to have to justify why an adviser to the UN, World Bank, EU, and UK Government needs his notability assessed here. The page should never have had an AfD - it should have been a note to verify the information within the profile. Simone2049 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Among the sources cited in the article I can find nothing other than works by Middlebrook or interviewing him, not about him, and I can find no significant coverage of him elsewhere. A very professional promotional job has clearly been done on this article, so we can assume that the best available sources have been presented there. As regards WP:ACADEMIC, which should be checked as an editor above has claimed that Middlebrook is an academic, there are only a couple of dozen citations to his work reported by Google Scholar and none of the other ways to pass that guideline are applicable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there was a previous sock-infested "no consensus" deletion discussion under the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middlebrook in 2005, when our inclusion standards were much laxer. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did not say that this individual has legitimacy under the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, he is not really an academic, as one can see. He is not a professor under some university. He does have legitimacy under WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ECONOMIST, WP:AUTHOR, and meets (WP:BASIC) also.

Let's try an check his notability through links and perhaps even photos:

1. Photo with Helen Clark (New Zealand politician who served as the 37th Prime Minister of New Zealand from 1999 to 2008, and was the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme from 2009 to 2017): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helen_Clark_%26_Peter_Middlebrook.jpg

2. Photo with Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli (Iranian conservative politician and interior minister of Hassan Rouhani's government): https://twitter.com/petemiddlebrook/status/641998855714828288 & https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COjWjcDUAAAyzYn.jpg

3. Photo with Abdullah Abdullah (Afghan politician, serving as Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan since September 2014): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwWVIRgVQAEzUyg.jpg:large

4. Photo of P. Middlebrook and the team of Stop Ivory NGO (putting a ban to the ivory sale: http://stopivory.org/ ): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwWUcZ8VIAA2pl4.jpg

Also, go to http://stopivory.org/panel-of-advisors/ and see the panel of advisors — Dr. Peter J. Middlebrook, Geopolicity Group

A leading international geo-strategist and economist, specialising in emerging and frontier markets. A former UK Government, European Union, World Bank and UN staff member he has travelled to more than 100 countries. The past 25 years he has lived in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia and has a Ph.D. in Public Policy and Economics from the University of Durham. He has been a vegan for 25 years.

This again, gives him legitimacy for being affiliated with a NGO conducting work towards a noble cause — saving elephants.Thus, legitimacy under WP:NRV, WP:NRVE.

5. Photo of P. Middlebrook at the Leadership Summit for DP World - future of Maritime trade as a speaker: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CurI3ROXEAAitW5.jpg:large

6. Photo of P. Middlebrook on the Al Jazeera TV channel/network: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/55V4M7mhTmU/maxresdefault.jpg

7. Photo of P. Middlebrook as a speaker for Harvard Business School — Crossroads 2016: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CurHicNWYAAqd1h.jpg:large

8. Article in The National — Peter Middlebrook: Wandering minstrel on a mission

Peter Middlebrook has seen and done a lot on the way to Dubai.

Working stints in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq paved the Briton's road to co-founding the global management consultancy Geopolicity in the emirate. Article on him; URL: https://www.thenational.ae/business/peter-middlebrook-wandering-minstrel-on-a-mission-1.362020

9. Interview and photo with Musical Artist Swapna Abraham: https://static.wixstatic.com/media/fc6522_886fe8b77fbe48af8a86b12daa7c7234~mv2_d_5472_3648_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_330,h_227,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/fc6522_886fe8b77fbe48af8a86b12daa7c7234~mv2_d_5472_3648_s_4_2.webp & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkBBaGaE_WA&feature=youtu.be

10. Interview with Peter Middlebrook on Dubai TV; on the Topic of Arab Spring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q4Lrw84xeg

11. Peter Middlebrook on Al Jazeera's Inside Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-_HwjTvEKE

12. Article in the Arabian Monitor on P. Middlebrook: http://www.arabianmonitor.com/blog/the-emerging-international-order-peter-middlebrook-gives-insights-on-core-drivers-of-change/

13. Northumbria University Newcastle Alumni page on P. Middlebrook: https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/alumni-profiles/profiles/m/peter-middlebrook/ & video: https://vimeo.com/161617377

14. Article "Developing Centers of Excellence and Economic Hubs in Somalia – An Alternative Approach to Development" by P. Middlebrook: https://horseedmedia.net/2017/11/19/developing-centers-of-excellence-and-economic-hubs-in-somalia-an-alternative-approach-to-development/

15. Mentioned in the book titled "Afghanistan: How the West Lost Its Way", by Tim Bird, Alex Marshall: https://books.google.fr/books?id=noPzOJoY_30C&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=Dr.+Peter+Middlebrook&source=bl&ots=gbiJrLMV3S&sig=lRWumUK5rJL0n_GTzGW_JT_G4zM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij7OT9gdHaAhUJCMAKHWbsDRw4ChDoAQgyMAE#v=onepage&q=Dr.%20Peter%20Middlebrook&f=false "The authors wish to thank Dr Peter Middlebrook of Cranfield University, who worked closely with the World Bank on helping to develop the Afghan Compact, for his ..." p.273

16. Article on P. M. in the CFO Middle East: http://www.thecfome.com/news-views/index-86-of-gcc-finance-professionals-to-face-risks-ahead/

17. Arab Stabilization Plan Advisors — P. Middlebrook: http://arabplan.org/advisors/

18. Photo of P. Middlebrook with Former Myanmar President Thein Sein: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hgLoTBVqccQ/Vdq-E3mgpKI/AAAAAAAABnA/RjW5R0Uj6jQ/w406-h318-n-rw/Myanmar%2BPresident%2BThein%2BSein%2B-%2BPeter%2BMiddlebrook.jpg

19. Al Jazeera interview of P. Middlebrook on Iran: https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/10/2012101781648363363.html

20. P. Middlebrook's Book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/When-Public-Works-Generating-Employment/dp/3838306724 Legitimacy for notability under WP:AUTHOR.

21. Article in Business Insider Middle East on P. Middlebrook, "The emerging international order: Peter Middlebrook gives insights on core drivers of change": http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=59366&t=1

22. Article in Foreign Policy in Focus — Lessons in Post Conflict Reconstruction from the New Afghanistan Compact A comprehensive look at the issues at stake in the London Conference: http://fpif.org/lessons_in_post_conflict_reconstruction_from_the_new_afghanistan_compact/

FPIF: Connecting the research of more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. FPIF is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Proves legitimacy again, I'd suppose...

23. Mentioned in the Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Security in Fragile States Private Sector Engagement in Peace-building November, 2015: http://www.thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PB16-Private-Sector-Engagement-in-Peacebuilding.pdf

24. Appears on the List of Organizations/ Individuals that Participated in the programmes of the Center for Economic and Leadership Development: https://celdng.org/about-us/our-clients/

I would argue that Peter Middlebrook has notability and him being on wikipedia is rather legitimate, under the existing guidelines of Wikipedia. I looked around to see how many sources I could find on this person, and seems that I have found quite a lot. He appears writing books, articles, in photos with Prime Ministers, Ministers, Presidents. I think it proves enough notability. The article might need a better edit, but to put it up for deletion is ridiculous. --EnzoLeblanc (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those sources has independent significant coverage of Middlebrook, as required by WP:GNG? I'm willing to agree that he's very good at self-publicity, such as getting his photograph taken with famous people, but that is not what Wikipedia articles should be based on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that EnzoLeblanc removed several previous comments and SPA notifications when making her or his previous edit. I really don't have the time or energy at the moment to sort things out, but must ask the closing admin to check the history of this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the article has superficial referenciness, none of the cited sources achieve the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. It started as an autobiography and seems to have been lovingly polished ever since. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely paid-promotion; not seeing how subject meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. His consultancy group has been quoted in some BBC articles, but that's about it as far as third-party WP:RS coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem like this article was used as an attempt to game the various search engines. For example, if you look at the pages linked to this article we can see it is linked to Haile Gebrselassie and states: In the same year, he also worked with Peter Middlebrook and Abi Masefield he conceptualized the Great Ethiopian Run ... In a similar vein, it is linked to Martin Middlebrook and states His nephew is Peter Middlebrook, an economist and owner of business interests.. Thne there's related articles like Right-financing where the concept is claimed as an invention of .. you guessed it .. Peter Middlebrook. I'm starting to think this article is a complete sham. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 26 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. Withdrawn by the nominator (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian L. Miller (music/entertainment)[edit]

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

Non-notable. I would BLPPROD although they could easily add a source. Doesn’t meet WP:MUSIC. _{Vermont | reply here} 13:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and improve - obviously an autobio, but he does seem to be notable in his profession: [63], [64]. I can also see some mentions of him in archived Billboard articles on Gbooks. Note that this was speedied G11 in 2012 when it was created by User:Adrianlmiller123 at Adrian L. Miller, where it will probably be moved if kept. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone speedied this G11 too, in its current state. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There's no AfD notice on the article, so someone should fix that. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Plenty of sources, hence meets GNG. Just for instance, Forbes, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, L.A. Weekly. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: It has been expanded, and sourced. Notability is shown, mostly. _{Vermont | reply here} 14:53, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U-Design contest[edit]

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

This looks like a thinly veiled advertisement to me. There's not much out there that I'm seeing other than what's already in the article. Most of these are thinly veiled advertisements themselves, designed to look like news coverage that just happens to tack on They're super great, oh boy golly gee, and you can buy stuff from their online store!

This appears to be a student newspaper? This appears to be...apparently The Telegraph's corner to house user submitted blog posts. Maybe there's stuff I'm missing, like non-English sources, but whatever this is supposed to be, it probably belongs on their website. GMG ^talk 12:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. And probably unsurprisingly created by the same account that just created the now G11d Dare2Drape, which appears to be an equally non-notable online contest. GMG ^talk 13:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Deb (talk) 13:42, 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 speedily deleted by Cullen328 per CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Anniston[edit]

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

Non-notable "porn star". Subject has a page in the Italian Wiki, but references there also do not meet WP:GNG London Hall (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. _{Vermont | reply here} 13:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per below. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination). Article title is misspelled. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Samblis[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Composed mostly of self interested original research. Existing sources are a mix of listings, primary, PR and non mentions that do not back up the claims made.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. samee converse 12:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. samee converse 12:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. samee converse 12:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by searching on google, it seems to be weak notable but the article is promoting him and the refs are not enough to establish notabilityKamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no reliable sources in the article but a few mentions on google and a few pr releases on gnews, I can't see enough to support notability. Szzuk (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Party of the Truth[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable or pass the organization notability criteria. An unsourced article on a former political party that never got any representation. I've tried looking for sources, but couldn't actually find any evidence of the existence of this party. I will admit that it could just be English language sources that are lacking, but I can't locate anything. Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tiny, ephemeral party that drew little attention. I suppose that this and the other parties could be mentioned in Fijian general election, 2006#Parties contesting the election, which notes that there were 24 parties. I looked and found very little, although there was this in an apparently self-published book: "The others are minor parties, ephemeral, some with such improbable, entertaining names as Multiracial Dynamic Party, Coin Party, the Party of Truth. Their presence frustrates the main players, but..." I did find two articles in a proquest news archive search - but only 2, and both merely to list it as here, the BBC: "Nineteen parties registered to date for 2006 Fiji poll." E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While strictly speaking, political parties don't necessarily have to achieve parliamentary representation to be deemed notable, what they do have to do is receive enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — and while it's not entirely impossible for a minor party without representation in the legislature to pass that condition, it is significantly less likely than it is for the "major" parties that actually have caucuses in the legislature. There's no reliable source coverage being shown here at all, however, and political parties are not handed a free exemption from having to have reliable source coverage just because they existed. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apparently too minor to have garnered WP:SIGCOV. Not an encyclopedia entry; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 26 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 by JamesBWatson (G5: created by banned or blocked user)

List of protests in Albany, New York[edit]

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

This list's focus is entirely too small to be notable. The protests listed all received local coverage, but nothing wider. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability is very questionable and per EVADE it should be deleted. Springee (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: WP:EVADE relates to sock puppetry. Something we should know about this article's author? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G5 and it has been marked.– Lionel^(talk) 07:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra Forest Department[edit]

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

Prod removed without rationale or improvement. No indication of notability.Would have redirected, but it is so poorly written, not even sure what this is about, or where to redirect. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 12:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. This is a government department of an Indian state. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish people would use a bit of common sense before nominating articles for deletion. Of course a government department in a state with a population of over a hundred million is notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- actually, notability is not inherited, so unless a government agency has reliable sourcing it is not notable. Also, try to be WP:civil, it doesn't hurt to not be a jerk. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made no claim that notability is inherited, but simply appealed to the basic common sense that anyone editing an encyclopedia should have. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, you are correct El cid, el campeador, but it is a good indicator to notability (just like a book that is held by a large number of libraries gives an indication that it may be notable), following up on what 86.17.222.157 says, the MFD manages around 50,000sqkm of forests, and has over 15,000 staff (info from 2013 statistical outline found on its website) so it is highly likely that this dept is notable, anyway, the additions to the article made by Eastmain shows the MFD to be notable, indeed entering "Maharashtra Forest Department" in gsearch news brings up 100s of articles about MFD that could also be used to expand the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a department of the Government of Maharashtra and it is headed by a minister. I understand that notability is not inherent, but I guess at the very least state government departments headed by a minister should be notable? There is always coverage (though most would be in Marathi) and it manages quite a vast area of forests.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The minister would be notable per WP:POLITICIAN, so of course the department that he heads is notable. This is just the kind of thing that I meant by my appeal to common sense (a quality that seems to be lacking in many of the people who hang around our deletion processes) above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a reminder to the nominator and other participants that WP:BEFORE includes this line:

If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)

My quick Google search turned up enough references to establish notability. If the nominator had done those same searches, perhaps he or she would not have prodded or AfDed the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there is an article on this department in the Marathi-language Wikipedia, perhaps this article could be expanded with information from the Marathi one, and the Marathi one could be expanded with information from this one. In the same way, perhaps articles on the other government departments of Maharashtra could be created or expanded using information from the Marathi Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 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 S. Krishna. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pailwaan[edit]

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

No confirmation that film has started principal photography; fails WP:NFF. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The article claims pre-production is underway so I would say redirect it to either Sudeep or S. Krishna. --Saqib (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib I actually redirected this article to S. Krishna but it was then reverted back by the author so by beliving that it will continue and lead to edit war I brought it here to be discussed, and I agree with your advice. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In this case lets redirect again and protect the page. Saqib (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Sure and I have no issue if someone wants to speedy close this as a redirect to either Sudeep or S. Krishna. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 08:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: As stated; it is pre-production so cannot have independent notability, it is far too soon, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and notability is not inherited. Otr500 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and protect. I would close this and restore the redirect, but I am unable to protect this so commenting here instead. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S. Krishna - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaurya Doval[edit]

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

Promotional BLP. Most of which is unsourced. The subject does not appear to meet GNG even though he has received some press coverage. It appears the subject received most of the press coverage due to his father Ajit Kumar Doval so I would say Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited applies here. Furthermore, the subject has recently entered politics, but as of now he fails to meet Wikipedia:POLITICIAN as well.. GNG says we need coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. And I'm afraid we don't have required coverage, as yet. The article claims the subject received two awards but they are not notable in any sense. Summing up now, Wikipedia:NotJustYet

Also I noted a user added a notability tag but it was removed by a SPA.. so I think some socking is going on here. Saqib (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And just found the page was previously in Draft NS (Draft:Shaurya Doval) and was declined four times, by @1997kB, Bradv, Dial911, and Samee:..--Saqib (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The draft appeared to be promotional and there was a clear case of inherited notability at that time. So it was rejected by me.Dial911 (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dial911: And apparently, the current version of this article and the version of declined draft is exactly the same. --Saqib (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shall check when I get some time. Dial911 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:Yeah, exactly the same contents. However, inline citations are placed a little differently this time. Dial911 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comments: I am sure it has happened but the first instance I have seen. What is the protocol here? The article doesn't belong, being turned down 4 times, but somehow was created "almost" identically (apparently the citations are the same just placed differently) to the ones rejected. It appears there must have been some collaboration to get an article created regardless of accepted community practices. Is there a "speedy" criteria so should this be brought to the attention of an admin? If no speedy criteria is there other reasoning this can be dealt with by an admin as a breach of accepted community practices or possible "socking"? Was the circumvention successful so we must go through the deletion process and possibly seek salting that can be just as easily circumvented? If an SPA (or anyone) removes a template without justification they should be warned but notability is certainly questioned with an AFD. "IF" consensus is still a deciding factor then there is currently two "delete" !votes, one "comment" and two involved editors that have not yet weighed in on the matter. However, it does seem there would be a way to prevent this from happening, or needs to be, else creativity has found a loophole that can be used in the future. Otr500 (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - not yet, but maybe in a couple of years. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael H Royal[edit]

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

Film producer and directors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Apparently, the subject is author of only two film (both non-notable at least by WP standards - one film is not even released yet) so I would fails to meet WP:AUTHOR.. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so fails to meet basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What valid citations exist do not assert notability for this film producer, and no further valid citations can be found to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom: And WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Otr500 (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where is the evidence that the subject has requested this article be deleted? The article appears to be an autobiography, and I haven't seen any evidence of the page author attempting to delete the material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 20 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. bd2412 T 13:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Vujčić[edit]

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

Director of several short films and actor in few side roles. Fails WP:NDIRECTOR. The best sources I could locate (being a native speaker) are this 2007 interview for Jutarnji about his graduation film (see recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where the Penguins Fly), and these two local portal interviews from 2015, about his organization of a local documentary film festival in Makarska. No such user (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in previous AFD: Hrodvarsson, FloridaArmy, Doncram, GregorB. No such user (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the case for notability. Even if one might reasonably argue that WP:GNG is met, the crux of WP:ARTIST is passing a reasonable threshold of real-life impact of one's works. GregorB (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FILMMAKER and GNG. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:14, 20 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! 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fonk Recordings[edit]

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Dannic, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. KingAndGod 09:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 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 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, there are no notable artists outside of the founder. Not a notable label by NMUSIC#5. Could be merged to Dannic, or possibly Spinnin' Records. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:59, 25 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 Armada Music. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstage Music[edit]

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

Vanity label owned by DJs W&W, mainly used for their own and associated releases. The sources are primary and/or unreliable and do not indicate notability. KingAndGod 08:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 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 Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 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 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost all sources are OR, others are unreliable. Notability cannot be inherited - so W&W can't just have their record label be notable. Secondary mentions of the label that were acceptable then failed under passing mention - e.g. Armada Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Armada Music. Significant number of notable artists appear on this label, but I don't see how the topic is independent of the main topic, Armada, nor would a merge there create an imbalance, since this is such a short article. The discography could be hatted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how merging will help improve the Armada article since it contains a list of its sub-labels with no description. From the hundreds of sub-labels, adding the content of only Mainstage Music would definitely create an imbalance. I don't feel the content of this article deserves any rescuing since it has no reliable sources that actually discuss the label in-depth. It's so easy to create a label nowadays that any independent artist could do it and "establish" it on Wikipedia. KingAndGod 05:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armada Music - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viswanath Tanneeru[edit]

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

Film producer and directors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Apparently, the subject is author of only one film and that is not notable (atleast by WP Standards) so I would fails to meet WP:AUTHOR.. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so fails to meet basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCREATIVE criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 20 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 WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boscov's Downtown Binghamton[edit]

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

A single store of department store chain, not a historic site (it opened in 1984), so I don't understand why this would be notable. Looks like it got some local news coverage because the store may close, but that's routine. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY of every store. Rusf10 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Binghamton, and probably the Wilkes-Barre, page fails on WP:LASTING, with all the news in a very brief time (three single bits on WB, basically status updates). WP:AUD might be an issue for both pages' sources. I'm not especially confident either way regarding other grounds of source suitability. I would also agree that the simple creation/closure of fairly normal stores would not be sufficient to generate the needing notability Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Septrillion (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - No evidence of notability. Received only WP:ROUTINE coverage. We don't need an article on every store. Septrillion (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Author is now blocked for block evasion. Septrillion (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are local coverage only, and this is just an individual store among a large chain. Fails WP:AUD; if there is anything individually notable about this particular store it should be included on the corporate main page. Scr★pIron^IV 17:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ both and selective merge to a sentence or two each at Boscov's, a short article where the references would be a nice enhancement. As per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be undue weight, unless we go ahead a write a few sentences about every single Boscov's store in existence. I don't see why these are any more or less notable than their other 44 locations.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reliably sourced info about a couple of individual stores would not require adding every store.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles per WP:CHAIN

"Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, a local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that is not true for the chain in general, Wikipedia should not have articles on such individual stores. In rare cases, an individual location will have architectural peculiarities that makes it notable,..."

This is just straightforward application of a simple rule. Merging into Boscov's might work, but would likely give too much weight to the two individual stores. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns that can best be addressed by expanding the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a small expand, source, tweak to main Boscov's article, a reasonably solid, well-sourceed article about a century-old regional department store chain. It would be useful, parsimonious, and simple to merge these two articles to the Boscov's page As per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothign that sets these two stores apart from the other 44. No need to mention them at all. Removing trivial information is consistent with WP:DON'T PRESERVE--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An individual location of Boscov's is not notable enough for an article. Dough4872 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Latvia[edit]

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

Not reliably sourced, no indication of notability for this community. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete currently I'm tempted towards delete - as noted this page has no notability, with the sources given unreliable. The couple of short books I've found are based mainly off wiki pages (either stated or found elsewhere). However, it could be a merge with Religion in Latvia, as it might meet notability for a section, and the information could remain until referenced properly. I'm unclear between the two, so interested to hear what others think. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. After some good discussion which helped me unearth some additional sources on this, I’ve decided to withdraw. I’ll be stripping back the article and rebuilding from the ground up. Any help would be welcomed! (non-admin closure) Triptothecottage (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bendigo street housing campaign[edit]

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

Article is promotional in tone and appears to have been created by COI editor. Although the episode is worthy of coverage in the East West Link (Melbourne) article, it is not individually notable and the campaign has received only incidental coverage in the course of charting opposition to the road tunnel. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main editing seems to be by an WP:SPA but so what if it is referenced appropriately. WP:COI by an editor is not grounds for deletion if they present a WP:NPOV. This is not a single event. This is not just news. This is not simply a subset of the East West Link but has taken on a life of its own separate from the East West Link. Yes there is some definite scope for clean up, but it is not a WP:TNT either. There seems to be quite sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoziwe: WP:TMA! ;) Triptothecottage (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are are registered shortcut redirects, specifically relevant to the points of debate? BTW, WP is not an AFZ. Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Mixed - Notability is distinctly weak in areas - evictions, timeline are both lacking entirely. That aside, much of the range of sources only comes in the background section - which doesn't provide any standalone notability as it is a subset of the East-West line article. Sources on the actual subject matter are: Green Left Weekly - not a neutral source. Homeless Persons Official website - which is OR. ABC which is a good source, The Age, also a reasonably good source. Bendigo Advertiser also seems to have some articles on it, which could be added - quality of articles seem reasonable, unsure of any bias level. My view is somewhat mixed - clearly individual sections lacking sufficient suitable sources doesn't impact a whole article's notability. Whether 2 good sources on the core article matter provides sufficient notability - I'm leaning towards yes, but if there are arguments otherwise, let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nosebagbear: Just to clarify for you and any others who might like some background, the Age and Bendigo Advertiser are both published by Fairfax Media and consequently duplicate a lot of content on their sites. Given the story originates in Melbourne I'd suggest the coverage you found began life as an Age article and is now duplicated across various Fairfax mastheads. Fairfax as a whole is usually accused of leaning left but generally speaking offers high-quality news coverage. Ditto the ABC. Right-wing coverage would be found in the [[Herald Sun] or The Australian if it exists at all, for non-Australian readers. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Triptothecottage: thanks for that. So while I shouldn't ref equivalent ones, there were lots of Advertiser articles - more than on Age. So there might well be something in the former that the latter lacks, and would still presumably be reliable? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - @Nosebagbear: Nup, if they’re cross-published they’ll be identical. That said, trying to find any articles to illustrate the theory, I couldn’t find any coverage of this episode in the BA. Everything that came up in my GNews search relates to Bendigo, which is a different place some 200km away. Anyway, long way off topic now! Triptothecottage (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Keep*

I would input as a resident of Collingwood at this time that this page is vital to publishing truths that were smeared throughout the media, it also exposes many many breaches of the charter of human rights in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.81.190 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided, but any "keep" decision would need to be conditional on removing all unsourced content per WP:OR and resolving clear WP:POV problems. Squatting and all its political or social implications was nothing new to Melbourne.[65][66][67] What made this special? Why isn't it part of a much broader article similar to Squatting in the United States? Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what the relevance of generalised squatting is here: it was a specific campaign (and one extremely well-covered in mainstream media) with specific demands related to housing and homelessness that had nothing to do with the "political or social implications" of squatting, whatever they are. It was as much about squatting as the Franklin Dam campaign was about the issues of people who like chaining themselves to trees. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received tons of mainstream media coverage from all major media outlets active in Victoria. Needs a good bit of cleanup for the COI issues and to tighten up on referencing, but it's still clearly notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 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. Sandstein 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highlanders of Tomorrow Band[edit]

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

Non-notable band ensemble from two elementary schools, only coverage seems to be from an article located here : http://wvmetronews.com/2018/04/11/webster-county-to-be-states-first-competing-elementary-school-band/ Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains no references and there are no links from other articles to it. The band was founded by Josh Tharp, and the article was created by WP:SPA User:Jtharp84, which raises suspicions at least. Even if we forget all this, WP:TOOSOON also applies to a band that was founded in August 2017. It can go.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 06:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is interesting that an elementary-school band competed against high school bands in an event, but that doesn't make the band notable. The lack of coverage in reliable sources outside the local area is further evidence of that. On the merits of the article alone, we should delete. (When we compound the fact that the original editor appears to be creating a promotional piece for the band rather than a neutral encyclopedia article that complies with Wikipedia policies and the Manual of Style, that's all the more reason to delete it.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)`[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON, did find this with a gsearch: West Virginia MetroNews - "Webster County to be state’s first competing elementary school band" but more is needed (issue of article creation by a spa with coi highlights "Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can contribute to ... but watch out for all the rules") Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 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. Sandstein 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Hitomi[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meisa Hanai[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northeast Plaza[edit]

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

could not find any sources Septrillion (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- doesn't seem to be much more than a strip mall.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. WP:ROTM shopping center. Plenty of that with the same name all over the USA. Acnetj (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - non-notable, run of the mill location. hiàn 01:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable strip mall. Dough4872 22:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Lundquist[edit]

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

Non-elected and not otherwise notable politician. WP:NPOL. Madg2011 (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG nor does she pass WP:POLITICIAN. SportingFlyer talk 04:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable just by being a candidate. Acnetj (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides her candidacy itself, then she has to win the election and thereby hold the office, not just run as a candidate, to become notable as a politician. But this makes no strong claim of preexisting notability at all. No prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, but nothing here entitles her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Lundquist is a public official and her reputation goes beyond being a candidate in an election. She's been interviewed on CTV News and been in other news articles for her work as a Unifor lawyer, most famously when the Human Rights Tribunal sided with her in a case of 2 Mexican women being exploited by a business owner in Canada (interview with CTV News can be found here). Given her work and exposure on major news networks, in addition to her running for elected office, I believe there is sufficient grounds to keep the article. - Matticus333 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People do not get Wikipedia articles for being interviewed by the media, either: if she's speaking about herself in the interview, then she's making unverified self-published claims that haven't necessarily been fact-checked for accuracy, and if she's speaking about something else then she fails to be the subject of the coverage in question. So no, appearing as a talking head on the news is neither a notability claim in and of itself, nor coverage about her for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casa De San Miguel Montessori School[edit]

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

No references and no claim of notability. Does not appear to satisfy general notability or organizational notability with in-depth third-party coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete which is why I PROD'd it. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing suggests this is truly a secondary school. Anyway, the one source, Facebook, is inherently not at all reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minimally WP:TNT, because Facebook is never an acceptable source. Fails WP:V. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Legacypac - You and I may have had an edit conflict as we tried different deletion methods. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 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 redirect to Gerard Basset. J04n(talk page) 12:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot in the Woods[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable B&B. Per the PROD no available sources to improve to satisy WP:Notability. Polyamorph (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Until today, the article was about the hotel at the same location owned by the same people, called TerraVina. I'm not familiar with determining the notability of restaurants/hotels as they would be expected to garner some coverage routinely, but there is certainly RS-coverage of the former location: [68] [69] [70]. There is also some industry coverage about the relaunch: [71]. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the refs weren't dead, most of them refer to the owners and not the hotel. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I am seeing a great deal of SIGCOV in a Proquest news search on Terravina. it does not seem possible for a story to cover Terravina without discussing Basset. Indeed, why should they? The point of going there appears to be Basset's expertise. Still, there is a lot of coverage. Far too much notability to make deletion appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you posted examples of significant coverage, I see some restaurant reviews (of Terravina not spot in the woods), but are reviews significant coverage? Also notability of the owners does not transfer to this restaurant without significant coverage. No point redirecting to Terravina since that is a redirect to this page! So you must mean redirect to Gerard Basset? Polyamorph (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect to Gerard Basset there are quite a lot of INDEPTH reviews of the hotel Terravina. Also this long story in the Telegraph, The infamous tale behind hotelier's success story: Journalists brought to town by murder trial helped to launch boutique business; Burn-Callander, Rebecca. The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) [London (UK)15 Dec 2015: 8.] (detailing how the hotel's reputation was made when reporters covering the Rosemary West trial told foodie colleagues about the hotel, which reaped a harvest of press.) And this one: A hotel and restaurant couple 20 years on; Lander, Nicholas. FT.com; London (Feb 14, 2009). Perhaps the Basset article ought to be an article about both proprietors, and their successful partnership.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above and my earlier comment. SmartSE (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails the criteria for establishing notability. Notability is not inherited and while the co-owner appears to have their own page, there is nothing to indicate that a redirect is required. A merge of any appropriate information appears to be the best solution. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient media coverage fails WP:GNG. Every hotel - from 1 to 5 stars - gets reviews. That's a given. The key is to find press coverage to separate the most noteworthy hotels. If this were a sufficiently notable business, the name change would have garnered more coverage than this single piece I found on a hospitality marketing site.[[72]] Also perhaps WP:TOOSOON - we can always revisit if the name change spurs attention and generates media coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KYE Systems Corp.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wanting another opinion as I AfD'd this over a year ago with a no consensus result. The article has had very few major revisions since then and possibly falls over CSD A7 (and maybe G11?). Refraining from PROD due to the previous AfD. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 00:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 22 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.