< 24 April	26 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nando medina[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. References do not mention the subject at all, and no reliable sources have been found. Richard3120 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 16:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of meeting WP:GNG. Also, es:Nando Medina was deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom, doesn't meetWP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally PRODed this article to encourage editor to find add sources to demonstrate Notability. Clearly this hasn't happened. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:08, 2 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Holt[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable who failes WP:NBASEBALL Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 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 HEPA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HEGA[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources. Septrillion (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This acronym is in use in the filtering field: [2], [3], and security field, e.g., [4]. I don't think it has the notability of HEPA, but it would be due weight to mention it in the HEPA article, if only to clarify the difference between the two types of filtration. --Mark viking (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a stub since 2005. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HEPA, make a mention there. It is being used [5][6] but not exactly frequently, which suggest supporting the term but redirecting. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to HEPA, it is a stub for a long time, I think it Should be merged with its own section on the HEPA page. Felicia (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fofana Saibou[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. PhilKnight (talk) 21:44, 3 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry Electronics[edit]

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

A very low profile electronics company. Only a single independent source quoted and searches reveal little better other than mentions, LikedIn pages etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by some margin. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Acnetj (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. My searches are finding routine distribution, brand and acquisition announcements but nothing sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:31, 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 delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free Lives[edit]

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

Not my field, but they have apparently produced only one notable game , Broforce. That's not enough to make the company notable , DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whilst Broforce is a notable game, (And it's pretty good from recolection), it doesn't make the company notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It has potential for future recreation, but its time as central article topic has not yet come. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Genital Jousting is also a game I had heard of (never knew it was by the same developer as Broforce, though).[7][8][9][10] Gorn has apparently also been in the news.[11][12][13]. There should be plenty of sources and the studio certainly meets WP:GNG. I think Genital Jousting and Gorn may meet the general notability guidelines as well, though I'd recommend making a draft for those first. Right now, this article can cover them, as it is still short. ~Mable (chat) 08:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources offered above do not meet WP:NCORP. Just a directory listing for a company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 3 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Haley[edit]

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

I can't find the sources to show he meets WP:NARTIST or really, any coverage whatsoever of this painter. Courcelles (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an apparent vanity piece whose refs do not support even GNG.104.163.159.237 (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are very few reliable sources I could find to establish notability. It appears that he had Some exhibitions in the early 2000’s, but none of them would rise to the level of satisfying some exhibitions in early 2000‘s, but none of them would rise the level of satisfying WP:ARTIST. Additionally there are almost no reviews.″Additionally there are almost no reviews.Theredproject (talk) 00:47, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Mercer[edit]

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

This article has had a notability tag on it since 2011, and my Google search seemed to show why: there's very little coverage of her out there. Most articles related to Margaret Mercer pertain to a philanthropist from the 19th century, a more specific search (such as her name alongside the phrase "radio", or the radio state where she worked) finds little coverage of her outside of her appointment to said radio station. Fails WP:NBIO as a WP:1E. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable program director for a radio station.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Program directors of individual local radio stations are not handed an automatic notability freebie just for existing — to qualify for Wikipedia articles, they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in media other than their own employer's self-published content about itself and its own staff, to clear WP:GNG. But this shows no evidence of that: the "references" here are entirely primary sources, with the exception of two glancing namechecks of her existence in newspaper articles that aren't about her. This does not demonstrate notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. External search not turning up much in terms of sources. Husounde (talk) 00:56, 3 May 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. Only argument to keep fails to cite good policy reasons, and is a WP:SPA -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Coyne Racing with Vasser Sullivan[edit]

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

Too similar to existing article Dale Coyne Racing. The DCR organization fields two full-time entries to the IndyCar Series, only one of which is entered under the "DCR with Vasser-Sullivan" banner. Delete for redundancy. Article's creator is also under a COI block. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't even explain what it is. Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily advitorial content still. As the nominator stated, primarily a duplicated topic. John from Idegon (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the page is different than the DCR team page, especially after ridding it of some info more fit for the DCR page. It explains the history of 2018 partners (KVHS info) and other team background fans can't find on the DCR page. I didn't know about the Red Bull GRC connections.. That information would never be relevant when just tacked onto the DCR page as GhostOfDanGurney has proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocalRacer (talk • contribs) 22:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment @SocalRacer: If you can find precedent for a co-entrant on a single car of a multi-car team warranting a duplicate article, I'm all ears. As it is, all sources point to Vasser and Sullivan being no more than a glorified sponsor for Bourdais. Not the 19 car, not the Indy one-offs, just Bourdais. No merger of teams and equipment took place, as they had sold their stuff all to Juncos Racing before the '17 500. Nothing is stopping them from moving on to Ganassi next year except maybe a multi-year contract. The history of Vasser and Sullivan can be found on the KVSH page. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:09, 3 May 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. Even clear claims to notability must be supported by sources. bd2412 T 02:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

999 (Ukrainian band)[edit]

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

Promoting non notable band that doesn't meet WP:BAND. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources. The stub is made up of unreliable facebook, soundcloud and numberofmusic fans blog. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the claims that the band has had singles in the charts of several countries are wrong. I can't speak Polish or Ukrainian, and hence can't verify this. If the claims of hits are correct, then the band is notable. Ross-c (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The search tools produce zero dedicated web 'hits.' The article itself cites zero references. So far, the score is zero. The group's two ostensible big hits are shown in Cyrillic script=less than zero. Out the door. Tapered (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Notability standards, also has no sources in the article. Felicia (talk) 01:09, 3 May 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 nom (non-admin closure) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karibi Dede[edit]

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

No indication of general notability given and subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like he had playing time in the Canadian Football League, which passes WP:NGRIDIRON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom. Sorry I didn't pick-up on his CFL play during my BEFORE. Thank you Paul McDonald for finding it. Chetsford (talk) 00:17, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Chambers[edit]

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

I stumbled across this article as an under-referenced BLP. I have been unable to find any mention of her on any other website, other than an IMDb page and a short filmography on the BFI website, and so I've been unable to find anything to back up most of the statements on the page. I therefore feel this article does not meet WP:GNG BubbleEngineer (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nominator that sources are weak, but one reliable source does confirm an extensive career in TV and occasionally in leading roles. One of the issues in Wikipedia is a very significant bias towards more recent events ( and also towards first world issues) . The filmography here all predates the internet so nothing is likely to be found on web-sites. The significance of her roles and her long association with Grange Hill strongly suggest notability to me. To improve the sources a committed editor may need to trawl through newspapers of the time in a Public Library. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point about recentism. However, I don't think any of the roles listed could be described as leading or particularly significant though (IMO), given the lack of any mentions in other coverage of the productions. Having a couple of very minor roles in soap operas is unlikely to qualify as inherently notable? BubbleEngineer (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was a regular in Grange Hill (I am old enough to remember!) but this indicates her playing a significant part in Pride and Prejudice. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She did a great job in a small but important role in the BBC Pride and Prejudice, which was notable and is likely to remain so. I see no reason for Wikipedia to deprive future viewers of information about this actress. See also BFI for some of her other roles. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did add a citation from BBC to verify her role as Anne de Bourgh in Pride and Prejudice. I see she has at least five named roles in significant productions. Therefore, she passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel this is verging on non-notability however Velella makes a valid point her last appearance was in the 90's so keep for that reason. –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kreek[edit]

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

Promotional article of non notable defunct band that doesn't meet WP:BAND nor WP:ORG completely. Made up of all non notable singers as well as non-reliable, vanity blog sources. The stub has three links given as "sources".

The first one which is craftly replicated as 6 references is www.spirit-of-metal.com/en/band/Black_Kreek. Apart from being totally unreliable fans-blog, it contains only the list of the non notable so-called singers.
The second reference www.metal-archives.com/bands/Black_Kreek/84213 which is another unreliable business listing, contains even scarcer information than above. It is also replicated six times as a reference.
The last and third source is www.numberonemusic.com/blackkreek which is worse than the all the above sources. Their about page explains who are they and their business. And curiously that blog is brought as reliable source to support notability. Ammarpad (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They have nothing but a few song listings and basic mentions of their existence, and even those are rare. (For frequent voters here, also note that Metal-Archives.com fell behind on artist updates years ago and it was always just a database of listings.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just states that the band exists, but completely fails to say anything about them that could even be measured for whether it passes WP:NMUSIC or not — and the references are not reliable sources for the purposes of establishing a band as being notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 28 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. The statement "Wikipedia is free" is true. The statement "I can create anything I want" is not true. Wikipedia has notability guidelines and a verifiability policy. These criteria have not been demonstrated to have been met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Throw Yo Neighborhood Up[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, being on a chart is not sufficient - there should be enough content for a standalone article SeraphWiki (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Add more sources in the article to ensure. --Leonardo.G G (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You better close this discussion there's no need. --Leonardo.G G (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was still working on article checking the sources to add when you placed the article for deletion I'm just ordering you to undo your error so I fix the article and improve it. --Leonardo.G G (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Both sides probably could have acted a little better here: Nominator - It's generally considered bad form to nominate articles for deletion barely an hour after an article was created. You could give them a chance, or boldly redirect it if its nowhere close. Creator - If you've got such an incomplete, unsourced article, you may want to consider writing it as a WP:DRAFT first, so things like this don't happen. Also, so far, I spotchecked the three sources currently in the article, and none of the three sources source the information, nor are they what they appear to be based on their labels - all three link to entirely different things. For example, the "RapReviews" source links to an unrelated Allmusic article, for example. Not exactly sure what's going on there. Hopefully this was an accident and not done on purpose. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made mistakes about the sources I changed the wrong sources I would like to clarify here for you that I will never write fake things in Wikipedia I just answer the deletion article can not follow the whole rule but delete is not a good way to solve the problems. --Leonardo.G G (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if you think the best way is to delete the article then go ahead with deletion according to the rules of Wikipedia but in my opinion the article is prepared and well referenced and you did not find the information on Billboard about the position of the album why did not you research go ahead and you will see clear information of the subject that is written in the article. --Leonardo.G G (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I merely pointed out that none of the sources provided in the article actually verified any of the content in the article. The links given in the article weren't working correctly. (As of writing this, this is still the case.) I have not voted to delete yet, though I likely will if sourcing isn't fixed/provided. My recommendation is to now list out the sourcing here to prove it is notable. Can you provide any direct links to in-depth album reviews or official Billboard charting positions? Doing so would be your best bet for persuading people out of deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 22:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I nominated this too quickly, but I think the AfD stays open for seven days so there is time to improve the article. I did a WP:BEFORE check and couldn't find anything. looking at the main article T-Rock is rated stub class and high importance for project hip-hop — wouldn't it be better to merge and redirect? SeraphWiki (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. It's more of a courtesy thing than a hard rule. Conceptually, I understand your nomination. I haven't done a search for sources, but right now there's nothing in the article that confirms notability. For example, it alludes to an Allmusic Review, but the ref given doesn't link to it, nor does his Allmusic bio seem to suggest an album review exists, as far as I can see. No promising leads in the most basic of Google searches either... Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So if this is the decision of the volunteers I leave the decision of all of you if you keep or delete yes or no the article on the artist's album. --Leonardo.G G (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo.G G - You keep making these unattached comments, like you're not part of this or something. Can you provide sources or not? Can you fix all the links of sources you claim to exist but cannot be found or not? Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Sergecross73 msg me, I confused the sources the sources I put in the album article was not the album information but rather a rapper song than he did a part in the song. ---Leonardo.G G (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain how half the refs you provided don't even contain "T-Rock" or "Throw Yo Neighborhood", but whatever. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. No reliable sources found in my searches that would constitute significant coverage. None of the sources provided by the article creator were valid. Or even related. Honestly T-Rock article itself probably shouldn't exist. It had been a redirect for over a decade up until earlier this week, and it contains the same sort of falsified references this album article does, in some of my spot checking. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 msg me

Wikipedia is free and I can create whatever I want even articles created without sources have exclude any unreferred articles so I will continue to create my friend whatever I want. Do you want to go to the personal side, is it because I am a Brazilian user? --Leonardo.G G (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, and this sort of approach to Wikipedia will leave you with your articles deleted and your account blocked. The fact that you'd even suggest that shows how unfamiliar you are with Wikipedia policy. And no, it has nothing to do with being Brazilian. I didn't even know that you were from there. I have no prejudice towards Brazil, or even any knowledge in particular as to why anyone would be. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sergecross73 msg me − Has anyone ever decided what will happen to the article nominated for exclusion? –Leonardo.G G (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved admin or experienced editor reviews it and decides after 7 days. Considering the article is unsourced and no one has provided any valid sourcing to prove notability, it will almost certainly be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 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 delete. bd2412 T 19:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kretschmar[edit]

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

Non notable. Fails WP:BIO. Originally posted a Prod on Feb. 2017, which was removed by the man himself. No coverage per WP:SIGCOV outwith the company. scope_creep (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promo/advert from a nn individual, I opened the refs and translated - no RS there, google no better. Szzuk (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not demonstrate notability under WP:ANYBIO. Searches complicated by multiple false positives for other Thomas Kretschmers but no independent sources seem to include any significant coverage in English or German of this Thomas Kretschmer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 4 May 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. Nthep (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manjekia[edit]

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

Very Sloppy and unorganized. Has no real sources TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. I started the article less than 30 minutes ago, and I'm adding sources...which apparently you didn't bother to check.

I suggest that this AFD be closed as "premature" and the article tagged as a "stub".

Fact: genus-level differentation is generally accepted as reasonable to have an own article. This genus has been around for FOUR years and no one at Wikipedia has noticed. You should be looking to build on the new-found knowledge, not trying to tear it down before its even properly developed.Ryoung122 17:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The nominator, whose account is only a month old, appears unfamiliar with the justifications for nominating an article for deletion. Neither a need for copyediting nor (except in the case of a living person) a lack of references is grounds for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:New pages patrol for information on reviewing new pages, and become familiar with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy and, in particular, the due diligence you should apply before nominating an article for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a notable topic of encyclopedic value and the article creator has stated he is still working on it.SeraphWiki (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not grounds for deletion of the article, and it's clearly a notable topic. Really, all it needs is some of the references moved inline. Anaxial (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Perfectly notable topic. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 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 moved to Draft:Telangana State Health Profile. Most of those advocating deletion would allow recreation at a later time. Draft space is the appropriate place to house the article for improvement in the interim. bd2412 T 20:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana State Health Profile[edit]

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

Has very little WP:GNG on it's own and seems to be written more a promotional article then an informative one. At best, a couple of lines can be merged into Kalvakuntla Chandrashekhar Rao under the CM section. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep -- Another misunderstanding of WP:GNG. This article already cites one article from The Hindu, India's paper of record, and two from Telangana Today, a regional newspaper from this major region in India. This in itself is enough to satisfy the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--Per the reasons described by nom.Every government scheme launched in any state, manages to incur levels of coverage, as over here.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to later recreation (and of course userfy if someone wants to work on it later). I don't think we have specific notability guidelines on "government schemes" and strictly speaking, WP:GNG is weakly met with the 3 sources provided (weakly since they are basically all secondarily reporting on one event, namely the announcement). However, we also have pretty longstanding practice that wp is not a crystal ball, and for instance festivals, concerts, albums and the like don't get an article before they actually happen. Governments around the world make announcements of intent all the time, and it's not realistic to suppose we'd want to have an article on anything announced in such a way, just because there was some immediate reporting of the announcement. So I say delete for now, but I would anticipate that if this indeed goes ahead, there will soon by substantial, lasting, coverage worthy of an article. Martinp (talk) 11:52, 25 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) 16:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but allow recreation later. I mostly agree with what Martinp wrote above. This is a government scheme which has not been been formally launched. Although an initial announcement has been made, there are no details as to what constitutes it. There have been many government initiatives in India and some of them such as the Aadhar, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)and Swaccha Bharat Abhiyan are notable. However, the notable schemes receive a lot of press coverage. This scheme seems to be simply an initial announcement with no details as to when it will be implemented. I suggest we wait till we have more reliable information. --DreamLinker (talk) 18:30, 4 May 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTest[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that is not subjective. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several products with a name like "opentest" like this and this one. This made finding references difficult. All of the reliable sources for "Opentest", not the camelcase, OpenTest", were about a different company and product. If there's an easier way to find the sources for this product, I'd be happy to have that explained. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent refs, and I wouldn't expect to find any. Open-source test frameworks are a dime a dozen. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 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 deleted. bd2412 T 20:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Advitya (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced, with no indication of notability per WP:NFILM. Filming not yet completed, release expected in two or three years, and I can find no trace of it online. Proposed deletion contested without comment by WP:SPA article creator, whose only other contributions to date have been an article on the director Arindam Sharma. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advitya is the first Assamese upcoming sci-fi super hero film also to be released in Bengali language. To get to know please visit the links -

http://www.easternchronicle.net/index.php?archive=24.04.2018&city=2 and http://www.magicalassam.com/2018/04/advitya-assamese-sci-fi-superhero-film.html and http://www.wwgossip.com/2018/04/26/advitya-assamese-sci-fi-superhero-film-on-the-cards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs)

What's really needed is significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources, not blog posts from the day after this deletion discussion started. Any language is fine, so if you can find coverage in Bengali or Assamese newspapers, I'm happy to help with formatting the references. But in general, it can be difficult to show notability per WP:NFILM of a film that hasn't been released yet. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear The Mighty Glen, kindly visit this e link that will lead you to the Eastern Chronicle news paper where Advitya was published. Here it is - http://www.easternchronicle.net/index.php?archive=24.04.2018&city=2 [Check page number 3]. It is already published in national media. Then again in lot's of enterntainment related websites. I can't understand what's the problem? I believe, Eastern Chronicle news paper is a source which anyone can trust! Kindly have a look.— Sanki011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anki, please read WP:Multiple accounts, and only post here from your first one. Also please note that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your film project. Thank you, The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NYF. Cesdeva (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, The Mighty Glan; Advitya published in The Telegraph. Link - https://epaper.telegraphindia.com/paper/3-0-28@04@2018-1008.html [See page mo. 3 (Top left) ]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs)

delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article creator is now calling for deletion after a busy few days of attempting to circumvent this discussion, first by removing the AFD template from both this article and the newly re-created Arindam Sharma via sockpuppet account User:Sanki011, then via an IP sock, and then by attempting to blank both pages using his original account. Half an hour later, creator is asking here to delete. This discussion should continue until it arrives at a consensus on notability, otherwise we'll be right back here again when it's re-created under a new account. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel now, its early for the film to have a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I as the creator for both the above mentioned pages believe that it is too early. So, I agree with the deletion of these pages. As its too early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New link inserted. Have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reviewing admins, please note editor has resumed removing AFD templates from both articles: this is currently being discussed at ANI, but the pattern of bad-faith editing amounts to an admission by that editor of low notability. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are enough links for the page Advitya. I have even seen pages with 1-2 ref links. Well, as you said I deleted the AFD templates, I did that without reading much about it. It was a mistake. Sry that unknowingly did that. Anyways mate, I request you to not to delete this page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't delete the page as it is one of the biggest productions made in the history of Assamese cinema. Its good if people get to know about such an epic film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFILM. The above arguments are basic WP:PLEASEDONT arguments for an article that lacks any good WP:RS independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 4 May 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)} 19:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kamu Palan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Online sources show no independent coverage outside of the context of Golden Tours, and the article is more devoted to advertising for Golden Tours than for conveying any significance she might have. (Companies' CFOs are not typically well known as such, particularly in a family business.) Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability in the article, less notable than me. Szzuk (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Article creator is a new WP:SPA who has so far only created this article and Nitin Palan (and uploaded their photos as "own work"), the latter of which also appears to fall short of notability guidelines. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:30, 4 May 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 deleted. bd2412 T 20:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EOstudy Academy[edit]

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

Essentially a for-profit study group online with no coverage and no indication of notability anywhere to be found. In fact, I'm unable to verify that it's a legitimate business. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. whether or not it is an actual business, it certainly isnt notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm fairly sure after some research that it's a scam also. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or in searches of notability under WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 4 May 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)} 19:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DTR Modern Galleries[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Refs are own websites , a passing mention and an interview with the owner and a book sales site. It appears to be another small commercial art gallery with nothing special that marks it out as notable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete This is a primarily secondary market gallery for editions. Nothing in Artforum or Artnews. Four very very passing references in Artnet [14]. I'm leaning delete, but could go the other way if a case was made. Theredproject (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to delete after further reflection Theredproject (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or in searches of notability under WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 4 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agel Enterprises[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. No independent sources in the article or to be found elsewhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 20:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 30 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S L Raheja Hospital[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. One ref is an own web-site another is ratings site, another details a take-over and the last appears to be a press release. Nothing here suggests notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete we have had a lot of promotional editing, including originally undisclosed paid editing, around Fortis healthcare; this is par for the course. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Velella, have you done a WP:BEFORE search to see if there might be sources that would tend to establish notability, but that are not currently cited in the article? You do not mention it in your nomination statement, if you did one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jantakareporter.com/india/shocking-fortis-hospital-billed-grieving-parents-1700-procurement-price-medicines/164623/ may be a relevant source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting ref and probably does belong at Fortis Healthcare but here it hardly makes for notability - infamy perhaps - but we would need several more independent reliable refs to support a claim of notability by infamy!. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly promotional. This hospital may possibly be notable, but this is not a useful start to a neutral encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:54, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Is a Feeling[edit]

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

So about 10 years ago someone decided to write articles on just about every song from Days of Future Passed. The problem is, however, no in-depth sources exist for this (and a few others) song. Since it does not meet the qualities of WP:NSONG and is briefly mentioned, it should be described in the article on the album. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NSONG & significant RS coverage not found. Notability is not inherited from the notable album. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back to Days of Future Passed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 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 redirect to [Night Blues (album)]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Blues: 20 Years[edit]

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

I believe it fails notability. Fandomuser21 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike its predecessor Saturday Night Blues (album), which also needs referencing improvement but at least has a strong notability claim (Juno Award) that's verifiable as true, this one really has nothing inherently noteworthy about it besides the fact that it exists — so to clear the bar as notable, it would have to be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about it in media to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Searches disclose mostly download sites, lyrics sites, discographies, etc. No significant evidence of impact. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Saturday Night Blues (album). Not notable on its own, per a Google search, but perhaps saving the track listing would make sense. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saturday Night Blues (album). Just about a plausible search term, I guess. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 4 May 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 per G11. MT Train^Talk 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John sudheer[edit]

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

Lacks any WP:RS and is promotional blp. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I can see no significant coverage of him in WP:RS online, just a metric ton of self-promotional blather on social media and blogs, and some passing mentions in WP:RS about films he's produced. For future attempts, other variants of his name include John Sudheer, John Sudheer Pudhota, and John Sudheer Kumar Pudhota. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:38, 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 Canberra Rugby League. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 George Tooke Shield[edit]

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

Doesn't have sources and is very confusing. Not Wikipedia worthy. TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per "Wikipedia is not the Sporting News or whatever the Aussie rugby equivalent might be." A game-by-game account of one year of league play in one division of a not terribly large rugby league is way too much detail for a general interest encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canberra Rugby League. No evidence of independent notability should be redirected to parent article which already shows relevant results. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canberra Rugby League. No evidence of independent notability, but plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 4 May 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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Banana[edit]

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

No evidence of this neologism actually existing, outside of self-citing to the WP picture itself. All sources that use the word are unreliable (ie reddit and pintrest) and simply use the exact language as is used on the description page for the WP picture. I cannot find a single RS using the term "green banana" or "Central European megalopolis". I almost have to think the original picture is a HOAX that is being perpetuated by the internet. In any case, it fails WP:NOTNEO as not being used ANYWHERE ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: can't find any reliable sources for this at all. At best it is OR or TOOSOON. As a caveat, the related Blue Banana also struck me as highly dubious, especially since I supposedly live in it, but I did find some (pretty obscure) sources for it. I'm sure someone has used the term Green Banana but it clearly hasn't caught on in any meaningful way and this looks promotional if it isn't an outright hoax. Lithopsian (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Agree with Lithopsian. I think this terminology is not quite notable yet for an encyclopedic entry. So, i'll also go with delete. M A A Z T A L K 04:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be redirected to Banana, where Green banana already points. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Banana. This is in the thin line between WP:OR and WP:HOAX; somebody made up the term but it isn't in use in any references I can find. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above. Searching on Central European megalopolis does show some usage of that term, particularly west-central and the Frankfurt airport. But no with Green Banana. MB 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It is not even a megalopolis. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 1 May 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. So Why 12:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliv[edit]

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

Most of the citations in this article can't even be called "coverage". Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Unable to find anything else but marketing materials. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1002b[edit]

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

Following on from WP:Articles for deletion/Kepler-1003b, fails WP:NASTRO, in particlar WP:NASTCRIT. Only coverage is various exoplanet database listings and the discovery paper where it is one of 1,284 new planets and not even listed under this name but as KOI-1893. No popular coverage, nothing apparently note-worthy. Lithopsian (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per, at a minimum, WP:TOOSOON. The physical parameters associated with this object are not particularly notable, nor are the circumstances related to its discovery. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only found in databases or papers. Loooke (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a stub, largely because there is no other information. Fails WP:NASTRO, all the information in the article belongs as entries in a list, not a separate article. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Little more than a data card. Praemonitus (talk) 15:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Edwin Bailes Sr.[edit]

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

Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local judges are rarely notable, no reason to see him as an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. After several searches, the only sources I have found are the ones already in the article, which consist of this obituary which provides significant coverage, and this short directory listing. Not finding significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as required to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 2 May 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. J04n(talk page) 19:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apex (producer)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Lacks independent reliable sources. The only references this article provide are to his personal website and his personal twitter account which are not independent nor reliable. Also, this has been flagged for update since 2013 but hasn't been updated since Butch.labajo (talk) 14:04, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - plenty of coverage in WP:RS online, including the Uproxx interview already cited. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: contrary to the editor above, I can't find very much coverage at all about this person, and what coverage there is relates to legal issues over the beat for "I Got Money", e.g. [15] [16], making it a bit of a WP:ONEVENT. None of the other songs produced by this person are notable, and there is no coverage of him or his productions beyond this legal case – the HipHopDx article is an interview and therefore primary source, and the Uproxx article is merely a repost of a video interview (another primary source) from another website, which is now dead and can't be viewed anyway, so really there's very little material out there. His "official website" now apparently redirects to a website for an entirely different company.

Please note that this person is NOT the same as this music producer, about whom there is plenty of coverage online, mostly regarding his death. Also, if this article is deleted, then Apex production discography should be deleted as well. Richard3120 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The (handy, dandy) Search Tools (at the top of each and every AfD nomination) produce zero results, not even a google image. The sources listed in the article are definitely not WP:RS, and statements like "plenty of coverage" need to be augmented with plenty of articles, etc. Been here way too long. Tapered (talk) 02:52, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Leehy[edit]

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

Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:JUDGE, only state and federal-level judges meet notability criteria unless they meet WP:GNG otherwise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:JUDGE, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 30 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. So Why 12:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Dogs Go To Kevin[edit]

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

Can't find anything that convinces me that this book is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NBOOK isn't met, the author is a red-link, and most of the refs don't describe the book at all. This local interview isn't going to have the book meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 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 delete. Sorry, but consensus appears to be that the sources given are not adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwa Robotics[edit]

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

A university spinoff (very common: I have a friend who has three of them). Article created by a WP:SPA almost certainly associated with the company. Notability is claimed by inheritance, they built one project for the Air Force Research Laboratory. Might be worth a redirect to Bhargav Gajjar, also written by the same SPA. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NCORP by miles. Hammered by same set of MEAT/SOCKs that have worked on the page about Gajjar. See COIN Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Assert the WP:NCORP standard. scope_creep (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove notices, significant new information has come to light about Vishwa Robotics, the company is working on cutting edge robotics projects for many different US Military branches such as Air Force, Navy, DARPA, NASA etc besides the first Air Force project. ref: https://govtribe.com/vendor/vishwa-robotics-and-automation-llc-aerospace-robotics-arlington-ma From vishwarobotics.com website it seems they are not selling or promoting any products except scientific research to Pentagon so intention on Wikipedia is solely for information on advancement in fields such as robotics. Removal of this article would be a loss to Wikipedia readers since similar defense companies would otherwise not be able to disclose really advanced research progress due to military secrecy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergenes (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC) — Divergenes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We are looking forward to you responding to the COI notices on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional, no indications of notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I've also nominated Bhargav Gajjar] for deletion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Company Vishwa Robotics has been subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable news articles that are independent of each other such as Scientific American, Popular Mechanics as shown on Wikipedia and other sites. This is a wikipedia measure of notability.Divergenes (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only Scientific American reference I could find is this guest blog post written by Michael Lombardi - same guy who wrote the guest blog post on Vishwa for National Geographic (but fails WP:RS because it is a Blog). The Popular Mechanics article says the source is Scientific American and that article fails WP:RS. So again, nothing that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company fails the new WP:NCORP guidelines and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. No source indicates the notability of the company or why it is significant among similar robotics companies. Articles like [17] mention the company and concern the company's product but do not provide an in-depth view of the company or its operations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:31, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Society of New Zealand[edit]

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

I cannot find enough sources to support a claim of notability for this organization. I have checked Google, GNews, and GBooks. In recognition of its age, I also checked JSTOR, Archive.org, and Papers Past (an archive of historical New Zealand newspapers) for pre-internet sources, but again found nothing.

The best I came up with was a brief mention in a book about Swiss immigration to New Zealand ([18]), but nothing else. Swiss Wikipedia doesn't have an article to poach sources from either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Also rather promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find enough to bring this up to WP:GNG. There is mention of the organization in a couple of Papers Past articles, but nothing of significance. NealeFamily (talk) 00:59, 1 May 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. So Why 11:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tejaji Nagar[edit]

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

According to the lead itself: "A residential locality in the largest city and commercial hub Indore in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India."

The article is about a locality within a city. While WP:GEOLAND is applicable to the city, it is not applicable to the internal regions. General notability criteria is applicable to such areas.

The subject fails WP:GNG. Just another residential area. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:01, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Daniel-Adrian Spencer[edit]

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

Controversial notability, partially an autobiography. Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest he's notable. The article makes no claim of notability other than his unremarkable political activities (he's never achieved elected office) and Google searches find nothing significant at all. Neiltonks (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win, but nothing else here is a strong claim of notability for any other reason. Literally the only source here that's about him is a self-published WP:AUTOBIO on a user-generated platform for candidates' own campaign biographies, which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source — other than that, every single reference here is either a raw table of the election results themselves, or cursory verification of tangential facts in sources that fail to even mention Spencer's name at all in conjunction with them. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable just because "media coverage exists", if nothing they're supporting actually passes any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Even were this not an autobiography, it clearly doesn't meet notability standards. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 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. J04n(talk page) 19:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oded Sharon[edit]

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

This page has multiple issues regarding WP:COI, WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. The original author of the page is User:SoundGuy, the same username used by Oded Sharon on Twitter. This may purely be a coincidence, but I find it a more likely scenario that Sharon has created an autobiographical article. This presumably is the cause of multiple unsourced claims being present throughout the article. These include, but are not limited to, the following lines:

Oded is a Game Design mentor at the Shenkar College of Engineering and Design.
Oded holds a Bachelor of Science degree in both Physics and Computer science from Tel Aviv University, and an MBA degree from the Technion. Oded Has a Private Pilot's License, and he is an Amateur radio operator with Call sign 4X6NB, and a fireworks and Pyrotechnics detonator license.
Oded served in the Israeli Air Force.

No sources are present for these claims, thus failing basic verifiability requirements. Furthermore there are very few sources proving notability under either WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG, something which has been noted by a previous editor and marked with ((notability|biographies)) in July of 2017. This has not been resolved since. Fdebijl (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the article is a little thin, but I believe that notability guidelines are met. I would also agree that the article would set off flags because it was clearly written by the subject. I've gone in and done some cleanup on it. For full disclosure, I am in the same industry as the article subject. I have met him at conferences, but have no other personal or business relationship. I can say from personal experience though that he is extremely notable at the conferences, as a regular speaker, because of his talents at fundraising, and also because he adds diversity to the list of speakers, being one of the few Israeli attendees. More sources to our article would definitely be helpful, and there are several more that we could use, but many are written in Hebrew, and since that is not one of my languages, I have found it difficult to add them to the article. Overall though, I believe that Oded Sharon meets and surpasses our standard for notability. --El on ka 14:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject's only notable real-world achievements is having "Managed" a series of failed gaming endeavours. None of his published games has gained any sort of global success or attention. His sole notable characteristic is having a colorful personality and being able to publicly speak about things he didn't really do. Recently he posted on Facebook a plea for his followers to come to this page and speak on his behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.4.83 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Prüm (talk) 07:50, 3 May 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 Ruby Riott. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Riott Squad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreating of non notable stable, deleted already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Riott Squad Galatz ^Talk 10:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 10:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ruby Riott. Sceptre (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the stable does not have significant coverage in reliable independent sources and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its members. Nikki♥311 02:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above. Hansen Sebastian 12:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ProtectWise[edit]

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

Non-notable company SmartSE (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tagged advert - looks paid. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Crumbly[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines WP:ARTIST, WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. He's painted portraits of notable people for notable customers, but WP:Notability is not inherited. I can't find substantial coverage of him in WP:RS online, just passing mentions of him in local press when he's painted a portrait of someone notable, or of a local war hero. His book was self-published on Nook, and the book mentions of him cited are from self-publishing outlets. Sounds like an interesting person who does a lot of worthwhile community work, but doesn't yet pass notability guidelines. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Although he has drawn little attention in the art world, Crumbley's realistic portraits garner a good deal of attention in the media. Profile articles about Crumbley have run in the major newspapers including St. Petersburg Times: Greg Crumbly [STATE Edition, Poiley, Joel. , 19 Sep 2003]; Sarasota Herald Tribune, IN ART, WAR'S DEAD LIVE ON: A veteran paints portraits to give to survivors of troops killed in Iraq, O'Donnell, Christopher. 21 Nov 2007 ; Sarasota Herald-Tribune: A veteran paints portraits to give to survivors of troops killed in Iraq (open source). I would say that these long profiles in major, large-circulaiton, metro daily papers carry him past WP:SIGCOV, and that they certainly do so in combination with this profile of him in his earlier career as a police officer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Policeman draws his No. 2 pencil to get the bad guys, Fuoco, Michael A. 05 Mar 1995. In addition there have been a great many news articles like For Love of His Country (Delgado, Angela. Tampa Tribune21 June 2008)(paywalled Proquest source), an article about a memorial ceremony for a fallen soldier where a portrait by "artist Greg Crumbly painted a "Portrait of Life," that displays the Marine in his uniform surrounded by vignettes of his life" was displayed. Also among the hits on a Proquest news archive search there are a surprising number that include him in articles about artists who are commercially successful, like this 2004 Boston Globe story: THEY'VE CARVED OUT NICHE ; ARTISTS WHOSE FOCUS IS SPORTS ARE FINDING A SELLER'S MARKET: " Sports fans, like art enthusiasts, are sometimes big collectors... best exemplified by the (Buccaneers fan) in Tampa... an art collector whose (colllection includes) 11 oil paintings of Tampa Bay players by Valrico, Fla., artist Greg Crumbly."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn: wow. If only those sources were available un-paywalled, I'd never have considered bringing this to AFD. Thanks User:E.M.Gregory, for your diligent search on ProQuest. And if you're paying for that ProQuest subscription out of your own pocket, then I owe you a big pan of brownies. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Just for the record, no way I have pockets that deep. I'm just lucky enough to have access.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article, as Nom undoubtedly saw, needs an editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali M. Mir[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and even lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. This is clearly a promotional article and apparently an auto-bio. Saqib (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks references, and I agree, it does look like an auto-bio. Page structure is also off, but that is totally irrelevant to my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferCraigCarter (talk • contribs)
Delete I agree with everyone. Lacks independent reliable sources, doesn't meet basic GNG, and the only reference provided doesn't even support whatever the article claims.Butch.labajo (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find many sources for notability, so i'll go with delete. M A A Z T A L K 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the organization he was with was notable, his position would still not be enough, double since the organization itself is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 28 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 Jon Ingold. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Roads[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Coin945 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable enough to warrant its own article. Maybe this can be merged with the article of its creator Jon Ingold. Butch.labajo (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Jon Ingold. There does not seems to be much information in the article on this game which is not already in the article on the creator of this game. Vorbee (talk) 14:11, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George T. Farrell[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NPOL, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. I can find only passing mentions in WP:RS online for his political and community work, including foundation of a PAC, and WP:Notability is not inherited. Most notable political office claimed is a direct appointment by a state governor, and I can find no mention of this online. Much of the article was added in a few large edits by WP:SPAs, including the images. It might also be copyvio ([19], etc.) but I can't tell from the Wayback Machine whether or not the article is copyvio or there are mirrors of this article on the websites of groups he's connected with. The whole article reeks of paid editing, and most of the article is ridiculously promotional fluff. This can be fixed, but a high fluff-to-facts ratio can often be an indicator of low notability. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG, but the sourcing in the article isn't getting him there — it's referenced far too heavily to primary sources (the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, the publication details of his own writing, etc.), blogs, YouTube clips and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, with virtually no evidence being shown of any reliable source coverage about him in his own right. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exceptionally promotional. Notability concerns per Bearcat. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 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 delete. So Why 11:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London Capital Group[edit]

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

small investment firm. ,with £22 million, about 5% the usual size for notability in this field. The refs, as expected are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, only mentions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH criteria, and fails to establish why it is unique among investment groups. Coverage is lacking, with most of the sources cited being press releases or announcements of the company's imminent buyout. To expand upon this last point, LCG (as of sources from March 2018) is going to be folded into another investor group; this obviously makes the ability of the company to produce new sources that could be cited on Wikipedia nearly impossible.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, L3X1 and SamHolt6. When the firm reaches £22 billion, few if any will question its Wikipedia eligibility, but not now and not yet. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP as per above. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On a related note, I've also nominated the article on Charles-Henri Sabet] for deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fell down a rabbit hole of “financial services” companies today, and (unsurprisingly)... they were less than spectacular. Some of these have been around for god knows how long, so I’m guessing they just got Grandfathered in. LCG appears far more notable than the other financial services companies I was reading about in the same region. I noticed other editors talking about holding size indicating notability. I can’t seem to find the policy to support this. From what I can find from WP:NCORP, a company that has been publicly traded is more likely than not going to have the coverage to make it notable. I went ahead and added some coverage I found to the page that I think better shows the company’s press. I feel like if this page doesn’t meet notability, then there are a ton of other financial service companies already present on Wikipedia that can go the way of the buffalo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruntknow4 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please post links to articles that you believe meet the criteria for notability. As far as I can see, none of the references you have added meet the criteria for establishing notability (please read WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH in particular for details) HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 2 May 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. So Why 11:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leszek Pietrzak[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST, and WP:GNG. In addition we have WP:FRINGE issues. Subject has a phd, and was a state security officer for many years. In recent years he has been a journalist in Radio Maryja (appearing on the Myśląc Ojczyzna ("thinking homeland") show) and has from ~2012 onwards published a series of soft-cover popular-audience books titled "Zakazana historia" (Forbidden History) - you can see a list of titles and descriptions: here. The books are self-described as -

The fight for historical truth is an element of the struggle for political power, also in contemporary Poland. "Whoever controls the past controls the future," remarked the British writer and thinker George Orwell. Therefore, after the war, the communists began to fight for power from censoring, burning and destroying pre-war books. This was the introduction to the story being written anew. Today nobody officially censors history. Unofficially, however, certain topics are widely recognized as taboo. And as you know, the best censorship is self-censorship. The series "Forbidden History" is an antidote to the deception of Polish history..[20]
Who controls the past, controls the present? wrote George Orwell in the famous? 1984?. This is one of the basic principles governing contemporary politics. History is the science most used for the ongoing political struggle. And so the Germans have long ago pushed the blame for the Second World War and the crimes committed in it for the mythological tribe "Nazi", which over 70 years ago wreaked havoc in Europe. Russia, however, has transformed the Soviet Union, the ally of Adolf Hitler and the co-creator of conflict in the liberator of the peoples of Europe. Western countries completely forgot the betrayal of their allies in Central and Eastern Europe (above all Poland) and leaving them (that is us) to the state of one of the cruellest totalitarian systems in the history of the world. In order not to spoil the youthfulness of existence, uncomfortable faits do not exist in Western history textbooks. Also to this day, the silent consent of the Allies to the Holocaust of Jews during the Second World War and the complete ignoring of the Polish government's appeals for help and pressure on the Germans to stop the extermination have not been explained. This is the fourteenth volume of historical articles and essays by dr Leszek Pietrzak, a former employee of the Office of State Protection, the National Security Bureau, the Institute of National Remembrance breaking the taboo of silence, around the "forbidden? and silent topics. In this collection, the text 'Europe's Thieves' is particularly noteworthy. showing that Germans did not leave illegally at World War II. And ? already from modern history? communist swindle made in the 1980s[21]

Another, already 15th position in the PENELOPA Publishing House from the series "Forbidden History" treats about the falsification of history by our neighbors, Germany and Russia. Our neighbors made history a method of conducting politics. The lies that they sell about Poland and Poles are to be a justification for their crimes, and sometimes a way to transfer responsibility for them from the executioners to victims. The text unmasking this perfidious tactic is the essay "Who falsifies history", which is a kind of ranking of European historical liars. Noteworthy is the text "The instructive history of Klaipeda", showing how manipulations and lies translate into current politics.[22]

(and similar descriptions - vary by title - on how they cover taboo or "self-censored" topics not covered by others).

which seems to illustrate the WP:FRINGE issue. While his journalist work does generate news-items and mentions (e.g. his analysis on various topics on Radio Maryja) - he himself as a topic is not covered. Pietrzak's work is mostly uncited (google scholar shows between 1-11 cites for less than 10 items that he (or someone with the same name - we did not establish via RS this is the same individual - but it probably is) published between 2000-9 (mostly from (possibly - not verified it is him) his work at Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy (a government labor research institute)) - his "forbidden history" series and other publications from after 2011 are not cited at all.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The English-language "Leszek Pietrzak" article is a translation of the Polish Wikipedia article of the same title ("Leszek Pietrzak"). I translated it on 24 April 2018 at the request of another Wikipedian. Leszek Pietrzak was deemed a notable subject for the Polish Wikipedia; that in itself may make him of interest to English-speaking readers. Notability is not necessarily a recognition of a subject person's reliability as a source of information, or of the individual's general admirability. The English-language Wikipedia includes many individuals who have not been admirable or who have been liars, including many statesmen across history. Nihil novi (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE is relevant given the self description of the books - but that is a side argument - the main thing here is that he clearly doesn't pass on enwiki SNGs (WP:NPROF or WP:JOURNALIST) and this does not seem to be a WP:GNG pass (definitely not on sources currently in the article. My WP:BEFORE doesn't come up with much that was written about him by others and that describe him - most of what comes up is items that he wrote or commented on). Notability on Polish Wikipedia may be different.Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is undoubtedly notable as confirmed by the 20 detailed inline cites appended to his article. It is not even necessary to establish that he is a journalist or a historian, although the fact that he is one does not appear to be in dispute — it is merely sufficient that for the past two decades he has been a well known public personality whose views and writings are widely publicized in print and public media. There are about 240 entries under sub-categories of Category:Conspiracy theorists by nationality and WP:FRINGE is not a reason for exclusion — Wikipedia has numerous articles for individuals such as Gerald L. K. Smith, Father Coughlin, David Irving or the two subjects that have recently been submitted for AfD and/or RM, Richard B. Spencer and James Mason (neo-Nazi).

It should be immediately specified, however that, unlike the above-mentioned individuals, Leszek Pietrzak has not been accused of being a Holocaust denier or a hatemonger and has worked for the Institute of National Remembrance. Although Pietrzak's article is certainly referenced in much greater detail than many of the articles delineating those accused of being "fringe", this is not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pietrzak may, in fact, be considered a mainstream historian and has not engendered dispute and/or condemnation from other historians. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is undoubtedly notable as confirmed by the 20 detailed inline cites appended to his article.

..16 of them have himself as the author. Are you really saying those cites somehow create notability? Your argument seems to be that because his bibliography is cited that means he is notable. And see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I don't know where you're getting the rest of it from, i.e, about him being a well known public personality and widely publicized. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. An IP editor added cites to multiple "forgotten history" books written by him (that no one else cites). We are currently sourcing some bio info from an author page at a book publisher. In fact every single source here was authored by the subject or is an author profile at a publisher (and probably authored by the subject) - and they fail INDEPTH as well - so no independent sources here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - unlike notable fringe authors (or notable historians) - it seems no RS has bothered to cover this subject in an independent manner - and it seems mainstream historians simply ignore him (as is evident by lack of citations to his books).Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject's claim to notability is as a scholar/journalist writing in Polish. Notable Polish-language scholars and journalists are, of course, widely cited in other languages including German and English, but my searches of JSTOR and gBooks turn up almost no citations of this writer. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROFESSOR, and WP:JOURNALIST. Searching for media coverage, I did find a mention of him at BBC Monitoring (A BBC service that translates foreign-language news articles into English) but it merely quotes him as "Leszek Pietrzak from the IPN". (Institute of National Remembrance" [23]. I see no indication of or support for notability in any of my searches. What I do have is a suspicion that the creation of this article may be an effort to "win" talk page arguments on highly-contested topics encountering a strong revisionist push by some Polish writers, I refer to pages including "Polish death camp" controversy, Jan Grabowski (historian), Jedwabne pogrom, and similar, on the premise that bluelinking the source lends strength to the argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies criteria of notability. Wikipedia is a global project and persons notable in certain countries, don't have to be visible in English world to have a page about them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't require English language sources, but there are so few here that the chances of being able to keep an article neutral, given his fringe ideas, is vanishingly small. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is unquestionably notable and affirmed by many full inline references.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is marginal at best; we'd need better sources to satisfy WP:NFRINGE and build an NPOV bio. Due to these concerns, it's a "delete" for me at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not familiar with the subject of the article, but I'm in favor of keeping per MyMoloboaccount. I think attempting to reject this article based solely on the subject's apparent lack of notability in English-language sources sets a poor precedent indeed. I've seen a similar non-notability argument used for deleting an article whose subject was primarily cited in Afrikaans-language works. It's never been convincing, and it's never sat well with me. The fact that the man's personal views border on fringe is irrelevant for a keep/delete discussion and do not affect his notability. --Katangais (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Katangais, NO ONE has argued that this be deleted for "lacking English Sources". Yours is a strawman argument. I and others have pointed out that it is highly unusual to find a notable scholar writing on the era of the Second World War who is not cited in the scholarly literature; scholars and sources in Polish are routinely cited in the scholarly literature in other languages. Pietrzak and his books are not. This is a strong indication that notability as a scholar is lacking.E.M.Gregory (talk)

@Katangais: - we are lacking Polish sources (or any language sources) - looking at the article you might be confused by the apparant citations (currently 28) - however they are 22 citations of his own work (including some 16 "Zakazana historia" titles - fringe aspect pointed out above), a short mention in this news item, himself speaking on Radio Maryja, one line mentioning him on something he collaborated with, Author profile at XLM (probably self-authored) - a book shop or publisher, Author page at Wprost (seems he contributed to 2 pieces) - one sentence of out of date (by a decade!) bio information, copy of his description at publishing house / book jacket in a BLOG (not RS) - again probably self-authored). At the moment - we don't have a single source here that someone else wrote in a RS - nor anything in-depth - the article is essentially built off of what appears on a book jacket.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz,there are plenty polish sources, none is self publushed, what are you talking about? And why is it fringe?? He is a well known historian in Poland, stop it.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources in any language per analysis by Icewhiz + looking on my own with the aide of google translate. Only interviews or self-written stuff. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at his Polish page, and said (in a related matter that took me there) it was unlikely he would pass notability on the English wiki as it is all SPS and trivial mentions. There really is not enough here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact is there any source being used which is not written by him?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this news item which names him and not much else. All the rest, as far as I can tell, is either his work, or his "author/contributor profile" in various places.Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought, this springs to mind WP:CITEKILL, it fact it is practically a stereotype of it. 28 cites, 21 of them just citing a book he has write for evidence...the book was written by him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There is very little content in this article to point to his being notable. I note the Polish article is much the same length. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no prima facie reason to consider Leszek Pietrzak's writings less reliable than some sources cited in the article on Jan Grabowski by Icewhiz, such as Haaretz, The Forward, The Times of Israel, or the Jerusalem Post. Instead of "poisoning the well", we should critically evaluate the waters provided by all sources. Nihil novi (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE - Not a valid afd rationale. It is not even a decent OSE arguement as Grabowski would easily pass on GNG due to SIGCOV and on a few of the PROF SNG's criteria. As for using Pietrzak's soft cover (or newspaper) writings as a source on wiki - we would need some indication they are considered reliable - which the publisher, Pietrzak's academic position (rather lack thereof), and the lack of anyone citing these works (in an academic setting) - would seem to indicate a big no (but this is a totally separate issue from wiki notability - we use non-notable people publishing in reputable peer reviewed journals).Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an RFD, not an RSN discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MyMoloboaccount ApolloCarmb (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Myoloboloaccount's argument was persuasively refuted by refuted by User:Guy, Icewhiz and others..E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:I dont see why you have bothered to write this.ApolloCarmb (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert User:GrizzlyCatBella's deletions of SPA tag quite properly affixed to two edits made above by an IP account SPA. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is "SPA"? And why did you delete "GizzyCatBella's signature added to her 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 vote after GizzyCatBella had regained access to the GizzyCatBella account?

Nihil novi (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the perplexed: On 26 April I noticed an IP making comments above. I looked at the IP's edit record, and tagged him as an WP:SPA: [24]. I was puzzled a day or two later to have GizzyCatBella revert my SPA tag: [25] with the assertion "Removed false allegation". It didn't seem like a false allegation to me, to me, it looked like an SPA, so I reverted GizzyCat's deletion of the SPA tag. I now see that the SPA is an alter-ego of GizzyCat's. But at the time, it looked like a duck, so I tagged it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drop it E.M.Gregory,you seem to be confused. I signed my own comment. Don't waste time on this.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. He's barely cited as a scholar, and he doesn't seem to have gained much traction as a conspiracy writer. François Robere (talk) 03:01, 3 May 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. So Why 11:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginaria[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In November 2017, I withdrew my original deletion request for this article due to @Jclemens having found two sources which, according to @Gpc62, were sufficient to write an article off and close the AfD. I went with the recommendation and rewrote the article by watching the movie myself. However, upon reviewing the two sourcess that led to the closure of the AfD, I found that both only featured Imaginaria as a side-liner, none of them went into detail in any way. Because of this, the topic of this article is still not notable and still fails WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage; or any coverage longer than two sentences, for that matter. Should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 07:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both refs are trivial mentions. Szzuk (talk) 21:34, 30 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. So Why 11:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Phi Circus[edit]

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

Article holds no reliable sources whatsoever and purely relies on dead primary sources. Partially feels like an advertisment, but definetly fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH (despite its age). The sourcing situation hasn't changed since the article's creation twelve years ago and thus should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 07:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 10:32, 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 delete. Sandstein 16:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallah pornography controversy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, lack of WP:INDEPTH, and no WP:LASTING. What we basically have here is a single day news cycle item (a minor aspect of the takeover of Ramallah in Operation Defensive Shield) - a Palestinian allegation, and an Israeli denial - which wasn't all that widely covered even at the time (this was a "side item" covered for its novelty in the midst of more notable events (casualties, change of control of territory, etc.). Subsequent to the single news cycle, this appeared as a one sentence mention in a yearly state department report (which compiles just about all media mentions from the year), and some very sparse similar one-liner coverage elsewhere. Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Well sourced article mentioned in numerous reliable sources. However I would not be opposed to a Merge with Operation Defensive Shield ApolloCarmb (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Struck iVote per ARBPIA 30 day/500 edit rule.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV - there has been neither widespread nor in-depth coverage of this alleged "controversy" either when it occurred during fighting in Ramallah in the Second Intifada or since. All that has ever existed is a brief report in AFP: Porn upsets Palestinians, "irate residents... have told AFP." "The Israeli military denied that it had anything to do with the pornographic programming and instead blamed the Palestinian leaders." And a 2-sentence report in the New York Times: "Palestinians accused Israeli forces..." "The Israeli Army said soldiers interrupted the station's broadcasting but had not substituted pornography for the usual programming." The mere handful of subsequent "reports" merely echo the original AFP claim that local residents claimed that this occurred. But little notice has been taken since, none INDEPTH and some misleadingly cited. For example, one mention is cited in a collection of essays edited by Philip Seib, but the allegation ought to be cited to the even less notable author of the essay in question, Orayb Aref Najjar. A source that throws real light on this AfD is "Lies and Disinformation as a Palestinian Weapon", published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA,) two weeks after this alleged event; the MFA enumerates 14 alleged occurrences in the same disturbance, describing them, including this one, as "a few examples of fabrications disseminated by the Palestinians." This certainly fails WP:EVENT, and, given that we have only allegations made during a moment of violent unrest - and no evidence that it became a "controversy" - it should not be on Wikipedia at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A source that throws real light on this AfD is "Lies and Disinformation as a Palestinian Weapon", published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA,)"

.... I'm sorry, but this sentence betrays a clear bias. What you're saying is, we're supposed to discount the mainstream media reports, discount what the Palestinian residents have said and discount what the U.S. government have said about this incident and just sweep it under the carpet because we have the IDF's word for it? (a report which, I might add, is included within the article as well, so that all sides, including the Israelis, have their viewpoint on the controversy clearly stated). Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The context in which this source "throws light" is that this is only one of many unsupported allegations made that spring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that regardless of whether the allegation is correct or not - this is still a completely non-notable incident (event) either way. The coverage of this (possible) event simply isn't there.Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. What amazes me is that it's not even clear whether this happened, and if it did who was behind it. The entire article seems to be based on rumors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a WP:COI for an editor who has served in the Israeli Defence Forces to vote on an issue like this which involves a controversy surrounding the conduct of the Israeli Defence Forces in the West Bank? Genuine question. Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not a COI. I suggest that you give WP:COI a more careful read.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as clearly demonstrated above, the sourcing for this article is insufficient for our guidelines. --Calthinus (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apologies for the delay in replying to this, being very busy. The article is referenced from reliable sources, including mainstream media publications (Agence France-Presse and New York Times), as well as quotations from the U. S. Consulate and the subsquent Israeli official response to the case. The topic is also covered in reliable academic sources, such as the Journal of Palestine Studies of the University of California and a work published by Springer Publishing (published from a significant time after the incident, proving a lasting notability). Not only is the article covering a notable incident from the Second Intifada (it has some 23,000+ hits on Google for example), but it is also a notable incident in the history of pornography, due to its use in warfare (if the information was just on the Second Intifada article, it would miss this broader significance, relating to pornography in general, waranting a stand alone article). Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following small mentions on the day-two of the alleged incident, all of the very few other mentions are passing one line mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And one of those one-line mentions is sourced, it looks like, to to another. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage that I'd call significant. That, and the (frankly) bogus arguments for inclusion means "no". --Calton | Talk 07:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That thing is really of very minor significance/notability compare to many other events that had happen in the same area and at the same time. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor news glorified through synthesis of various news pieces to put up picture that never was. I actually also concur with what Ynhockey said above, a reader cannot even really understand what this rumor screed is all about or certainty of its happening. It is all media hype with no encyclopedic significance. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no significant coverage, As noted above it all seems based on rumours and as such the article doesn't really make that much sense, nothing of value will be lost. –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

InfoTrack Pty Ltd[edit]

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

References consist only of placement on various lists-- no substantial coverage, and no real reason to expect any. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I suspect WP:TOOSOON. If you remove their own sites, places who have bought their software, social media sites, basic directory listings, and job vacancy sites, then there is virtually nothing at all left in a google search. However they do appear to have possibly sold their software to a lot of organisations - I have not checked the veracity and independence of these mentions, but if they hold up it is likely that the subject might become notable in the future if the subject keeps on its current trajectory. Critically if the subject was notable (ie had some notable substance) there would a couple or more of non trivial paragraphs about what the company actually does, but there is only sort of one short sentence at the end of the article - could just be a poor article failing to state the obvious ? Aoziwe (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This company was founded by the Australian Entrepreneur of the year and had a boat named after it in the Sydney to Hobart race. It is also one of the first companies to partner with the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) in over 20 years on a joint venture to disrupt the property settlements market. I'd say that is rather notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.129.161 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure and unadulterated promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cookie cutter spam article created by a SPA, who presumably has some kind of undisclosed COI. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter spam. No indications of notability, purely promotional. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin ze-min lee[edit]

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

promotional and no real notabiliy. Associated with a number of copanies, none ofthem notable. Contributed to various charities, in none of which he is the leading figure. The refs arethe usual notices and pr. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Do take note that this is highly advertisement related and the prose is way too long. The name is also not the normal style: It should be Benjamin Lee Ze Min as per Singapore naming convention. Do note that the page creater started this page by stating "I have forgotten my login details from my SapioTalks account and am trying to publish this article through here now. Brand new article now" . Sapio is one of the works noted in this article. The app itself may pass WP:GNG (no research done). One more note, for PM Lee Hsien Loong Speech for National Day Rally (NDR). It is comparable to SOUA by US Presidents. But PM usually quote examples and many. Of the 12 plus years, almost 200 plus individuals and apps have been quoted. (I am a Singaporean who watches the NDR yearly). If we will do articles based on NDR, we need much more and some are just a mention of an technology. I don't think this is very credible. We don't know whether this is a COI (Conflict of Interest) also. --Quek157 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ADVOCACY page on a nn individual. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Likely COI / UPE-based editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 3 May 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. So Why 11:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tonicha Lawrence[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress; fails GNG except for trivia, Wikia. Quis separabit? 02:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial coverage in reliable independent source.s in addition to the articles cited in the article other sources include: The Mirror (6 May 1997). "Tonicha is star No5 to quit Emmerdale". The Mirror. Retrieved 2011-02-16, The Mirror (12 January 1998). "I was killed off in a crash days after Di's death.. it was such bad taste; By EMMERDALE'S TONICHA JERONIMO". The Mirror. Retrieved 2011-02-16, and The Mirror (13 January 1998). "Emmerdale bosses pushed me to the edge of madness; TONICHA JERONIMO ON HER BITTER SPLIT FROM THE HIT SOAP". The Mirror. Retrieved 2011-02-16. And clicking on the "News" link above returns numerous articles about her. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any links to these sources, please? -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable Soap Opera actress from Jersey, and very well documented, as stated above.--05:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment - This AfD should be notified to the Jersey and Soap Opera projects.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Meets GNG. Sources in addition to those already in the article and those mentioned above by my esteemed colleague FloridaArmy:

TV's a family affair for Leeds mum and daughter actresses - Yorkshire Evening Post February 22, 2017
Former Emmerdale soap star in running for business award - Yorkshire Evening Post May 15, 2013

192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thnks, 192.160.216.52 . Any links to those sources? Yours and/or FloridaArmy's? Or are they all offline? -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try googling the headlines provided? FloridaArmy (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to bring on the links, if there are any links. Or is this too supposed to be the work of other editors who "complete your work," etc? -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, The Gnome. I have no idea if they're online or not. I found them in Lexis/Nexis. What does onlineness of sources have to do with anything? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The question was put in order to help us double check those sources. That's all. According to the notability rules for persons, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. Has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;" does not have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following;" hasn't "made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Emmerdale was a major series; more sources now added to article, appears to have enough coverage for GNG. PamD 08:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contributors to this AfD are invited to examine again the WP:NACTOR wording. Subject must have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Meaning that a significant role in one notable TV show apparently does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's (new & severely tightened) criteria. We may be fans of the subject's work and admire her contributions but the rules are quite clear. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Can we have some discussion of the sources please. The Mirror for example is a tabloid and no longer an RS

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see this actress has had two significant roles. She starred on the show Emmerdale from 1994–97. She is also in the BBC medical drama Casualty in the role of Steph Sims. A google search shows signficiant discussion about her as an individial.[26][27] Lonehexagon (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actress from Jersey is shown to be notable by several editors above. I agree with them.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sander Hicks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 05:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:35, 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! 05:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPOL or WP:NAUTHOR. Coverage is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. In general, promo 'cruft. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion for nn individuals. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 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 deleted. !Votes by editors unlikely to be familiar with criteria for inclusion are discounted. bd2412 T 20:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perla Lichi[edit]

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

Spam, previously created by Perla Lichi & Perla Lichi Design under this title & Perla lichi. This time she's paid User:WGWP to act as a WP:MEATPUPPET. Spam of a designer who lacks notability as a person, and fails WP:NCORP as a business. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, promo piece, which fails GNG. Not notable for stand alone article. WP:NOTNEWS, applies. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really curious to learn what part of NOTNEWS you think applies to this. Please, enlighten! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your talk page, you know how things work around here and are not just "curious"; I suggest you clink on the link if need be and read for yourself. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not surprisingly, I did do that. What about it applies? This lady has been written about in RS for all kinds of reasons for over a decade just per Lexis/Nexis. What about NOTNEWS applies here? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks for itself. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Despite nom's unsupported claims about GNG, it's clear that this subject meets it. Just for instance, look at:
- Perla Lichi Design Opens New Office in Mumbai, India - India Retail News October 15, 2013
- International designer emphasizes classic lines - Times Colonist (Victoria, British Columbia) September 7, 2013
- WHERE THE PROS LIVE - Palm Beach Post (Florida) June 16, 2007
- Be It Ever So Humble, Really - The New York Times February 2, 2012

The last item is a review of a picture book of her designs, and it's in the NYT. As I said, a clear-cut pass of GNG. The nom seems more concerned with the tone of the article which, of course, is a matter for ordinary editing, not for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Based on references given I find her to be a notable businesswoman in the interior arts world. She seems to be an author of multiple books, as well as having numerous references on her page that lead back to reputable sources in magazines and newspapers (some mentioned above). GNG is clearly there, and doesn't call for deletion. — ShawSt66 (talk • 18:08, 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! 04:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt it, I've googled and searched news and concur with the nom, keep votes are an IP editor and irregular user. Szzuk (talk) 08:42, 3 May 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. Merging can always be discussed on talk page. So Why 11:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Sheep Distribution scheme[edit]

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

Has very little WP:GNG on it's own and seems to be written more a promotional article then an informative one. At best, a couple of lines can be merged into Kalvakuntla Chandrashekhar Rao under the CM section (a line is already present) Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Since when is GNG a mass noun that an article can have much or little of it? It's a binary standard. An article either meets the GNG or it does not. This one does. The two sources from The Hindu prove that. This is one of the major national newspapers of India, roughly equivalent to the NYT in the US. The fact that it's covered by Telangana Today just drives the GNG up to eleven! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:54, 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) 12:50, 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! 04:57, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saïd Amin[edit]

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

Questionable WP:BIO notability; only source with depth of coverage that might pass WP:RS is GeekWire. Creator of article appears to be single purpose account that has only made edits to subject's article and articles about subject's endeavors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject is Iranian-American with diaeresis/ umlaut diacritic in his name, would recommend checking if US Government allows use of such diacritics in official documentation like passport. 09:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Simone2049 (talk)

What the US government allows in documentation is irrelevant, because any such documentation would be a primary source. What does matter is the spelling used by reliable secondary sources, so of course anyone giving a "keep" or "delete" opinion should check for the name both with and without diacritics. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:24, 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! 04:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. A promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 28 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Vaswani[edit]

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

Tagged for over 2 years and woefully short of sources. Reads like a COI from this [User talk:Binarytalk]. Lihaas (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk)
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG -- significant coverage is not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:16, 4 May 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. So Why 11:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harris J[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO Cabayi (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found [28] [29] [30] by searching for the ambiguous term, "Harris J" and then appending "Awakening Records". Those are from news alone, although the general web search was less than fruitful. Would like to see Cabayi improve the article with content gleaned from those two entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing the Google news search to "J Harris, music," produces dedicated articles from NPR, Chron.com, and a reliable Pakistani newspaper site, Express Tribune, plus a video in St. Louis main newspaper website, plus a mention in an Al Jazeera article. Saw nothing on record sales, or much on deals. The originator of the article needs to get to work. This could be a keep. Tapered (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the coverage turned up with previous votes. My translation software for the CNN Indonesia site reveals the piece to be independent and non-trivial. While the NPR one is an interview, being on All Things Considered is significant. The Express Tribune piece is a bit weak, but it is coverage in a notable source nonetheless, and added to the other two makes it enough to convince me the subject is notable. But—yes—the article needs lots of work. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:13, 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! 04:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, just about enough from looking at the refs. Szzuk (talk) 08:53, 3 May 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. So Why 11:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)

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

Seems to be a forked article with no proper description of the composition in the main body and no reliable secondary sources devoted to the composition. It is mostly copy-pasted with some modifications from An Wasserflüssen Babylon. Might be reasonable to write a proper self-standing article, but that has not happened so far. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and userfy. It is reasonable that an article on this topic be written as a stand-alone article but so far no substantial content has been written on the main body, i.e. the organ composition by Johann Adam Reincken. Forked content copy-pasted from An Wasserflüssen Babylon has been written, with sources copied from that article. There are also some reliable secondary sources not included, almost all originating from the musicologist Ulf Grapenthin. For that reason I recommend that the content be userfied until some kind of readable content be created. I do not see any reason to merge An Wasserflüssen Babylon, since one longish sentence suffices to describe Reincken's composition (and the section from the main body). Mathsci (talk) 13:30, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and procedural close of this AfD:

Reasons for "Keep" were already explained at Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn.
Reasons for "procedural close of this AfD": AfD is not the correct process to request a "redirect and userfy" as the OP did, merge and split proposal tags + talk page discussion are. The OP has removed the split proposal tag *which contained a link to the relevant talk page discussion (see previous point)* at least half a dozen times (four times in the last 24h), without even once commenting on the talk page where the "redirect and userfy" discussion should have taken place in the first place. So, at this point the split from the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn article is uncontested per the regular procedure, and I don't see why I should be talking to myself in the Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn talk page section if everyone who commented there agrees the topic merits an article in its own right. This AfD is just a spurious excuse to skip regular procedure, i.e. talk page discussion if the OP proposes a "redirect and userfy". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I oppose the "redirect and userfy" idea: there's no reason for that, for the reasons explained at Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn and in this edit summary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edits on "music" ("musical analysis"?) come directly from the score (IMSLP?). They constitute original research and synthesis. The book of Pieter Dirksen on Heinrich Scheidemann has been briefly mentioned en passant but there are no properly sourced edits on the composition of Johann Adam Reincken (so far). AfD's are decided by consensus amongst interested users. Mathsci (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary comment. I am due to acquire two lengthy prefaces in English on the complete organ works of Reincken. They are edited by Klaus Beckmann (Schott Music, 2004) and Pieter Dirksen (Breitkopf & Härtel, 2005). As far as I am aware, these English versions are not available on-line (the ISBN references are available). These seem to be amongst the best sources for the current proposed article. They have not so far been used. The same applies to material from Grove Music Online (Oxford University Press), which so far has not been used. That includes valuable content related to the chorale prelude on the stylus fantasticus, Reincken's musical influence on the Hamburg opera and the collegium musicum. Again I do not see any way the main article An Wasserflüssen Babylon could be merged in a meaningful way. Mathsci (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Since the AfD listing was initated:
- Nine additional sources
- Content expanded & referenced
- Images, music examples etc.

IMHO this AfD is as moot as can be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More refs added, and in the mean while another editor (Rathfelder) de-stubbed the article, again suggesting there is no reason to keep this AfD discussion going for no relevant reason whatsoever. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments. Multiple images have been appropriated from the main article without attribution: see e.g.file1 and file2. There are multiple lilypond coding errors in images (<score vorbis="1"> instead of <score>). One of the main sources, "Bach: The Learned Musician" by Christoph Wolff (2000), has been superseded by 2005 research: the article does not take that into account. Stinson's sourced content on BWV 653 has been shuffled randomly, including into different sections: it is unrecognizable and misleading in the new context. Userfying still seems to be the only option. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion about the merits of this article, but it is clearly not a stub. Stub is primarily a measure of quantity, not quality. Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subsidiary comments. On 14 April 2018, I received soft back copies of Reincken's complete organ works, edited by Pieter Dirksen (Breitkopf, 2005) and Klaus Beckmann (Schott, 2008, 2nd edition). Both have a long commentary in English: when that exists, there is no reason to use a German version. Both versions are playable on the organ and the baroque registration is carefully described. (Schott's is in a more standard format for organists, i.e. A4 R.) It is almost impossible to reconcile the English prose commentary of Dirksen and Beckmann with the fork article. A general wikipedia reader would be able to read the prose commentary without problem; but the fork article is inpenetrable, almost as if unrelated to the baroque organ. Both editors give a biographical account of Reincken, including the relationship with Scheidemann and Buxtehude: the fork does not provide any proper context and seems to have been created by cherry-picking sentences. Both of the editors give detailed footnotes (citations), none of which have been included in the fork article. The sources, history and transmission of the works are described in detail by Beckmann, but that appears to be too technical for inclusion on wikipedia. Authenticity is only discussed for the fugue and toccata. There is a discussion on ornamentation, which, according to Beckmann, is already so carefully worked out in Reincken's transmitted sources, that any further ornamentation should only be used sparingly. The historical organ played by Reincken in Hamburg is described in detail by both editors. The reception describes the typical prejudices of late 19th-century commentators such as August Gottfried Ritter, who gives a withering account of Reincken's fantasia, "His frequently and respectfully mentioned work does not contain a trace of the elegaic melancholy of the chorale [...] one lays down this piece of work [...] this fruit of great efforts, with a feeling of disappointment and uneasiness." Beckmann gives facsimiles for the chorale in tablature notation and at the beginning of Altnickol's stave version. On Page 83 Dirksen gives what he calls a tabulated description of the chorale: it contains 10 lines, giving the bar numbers and the German text. The description in the forked article seems barely related to Dirksen's commentary. All of Dirksen's footnotes have been omitted in the fork. The registration of the chorale is explained by both editors with "O" used as Oberwerk and "R" as Rückpositif: no description of that has been given. The attempt to convert Dirksen's prose into some kind of list format, particularly in the attempted "musical analysis," has not been successful. Userfying seems like the only reasonable option. I still cannot see what could be merged from the original article. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles are summaries, not a complete rendering of the entire content of a source. E.g. a detailed description of the organ would, in Wikipedia's surroundings, be more appropriate at St. Catherine's Church, Hamburg#Organ (or in a separate article about the organ) than in the An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) article. Most of the content mentioned above is duly summarized, e.g. August Gottfried Ritter's rejection of the piece is mentioned in the reception section of the article (etc). Of course none of this is necessarily a final version of the article, but as written it is adequate and appropriate for Wikipedia's mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the cumulative edits of User:Francis Schonken are either (1) appropriated without proper attribution or (b) constitute original research and synthesis (so not in "the voice of wikipedia"). The attempt at "musical analysis" seems to be some kind of parody. Having examined most of the documents (including in the Anderson Room of the University Library, Cambridge), my impression is that these edits have not been made with access to the main reliable secondary sources and thus cannot be verified. One four-page German extract has appeared (essentially by happenstance), but so far that is all. Without the English versions, the fork article seems misleading and confing to general wikipedia readers. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has been "appropriated without proper attribution" (where do you get that? – please explain); There is no "original research and synthesis" (everything is duly referenced to reliable sources – not even the minutest detail has been demonstrated thus far as being OR ofr SYNTH). There is nothing "misleading and confing to general wikipedia readers" – on the contrary, I'm not the one advocating the article would be rewritten for performing organists, it is written for a general readership. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC); typo correction 10:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A complete objective assessment has been given as requested. In my case, I paid 50 pounds for two scores: in addition to having the English versions, I had the pleasure of sight-reading the chorale on a 1705 baroque organ. Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- re. "A complete objective assessment has been given" – incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please can someone else comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are only 2 votes. 1 delete (the nom) and 1 keep. The 2 contributors appear to be expert in their field and I could not vote at their level of competence in this field. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 2 May 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. J04n(talk page) 18:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Ditsworth[edit]

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

Outrageously promotional article for a surgeon in its original version [31]. I removed the worst of it. ,including "The proprietary technology and techniques for performing the ultra-small version of what is called "minimally invasive spine surgery" were developed at Back Institute, by Ditsworth and are only available through that organization."

However, I do not think he is even notable. Google Scholar shows only 1 paperwith more than a very few references. It has 129 citations, but in the very highly cited field of medicine, that single paper alone is not enough to prove notability as an expert. Everything else there is mere conference presentations and press releases.

I think this is very likely to be undeclared paid editing. The contributor wrote the draft, and then rewrote it in mainspace,, without knowing enough to remove the draft. The previous editing history is a blatant attempt to obtain confirmed status through minor edits.. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to thank DGG for helping to improve my article. I am a novice with Wikipedia and I am still building "the house". I would ask that my article not be deleted for the following reasons: WP:DEMOLISH and WP: CHANCE. I am still researching and working on the article about David Ditsworth, and I am researching and preparing articles about other surgeons, as well. Dr. Ditsworth appears quite notable with more than 40 peer reviewed and accepted publications, and also as a medical equipment inventor and creator of unique surgery centers. Please see WP: INHERENT and WP:INN. Twice, I have observed Dr. Ditsworth in the operating room and had to sign a non-disclosure paper about the proprietary equipment used there. I am not paid for writing on Wikipedia, and not connected to Dr. Ditsworth; but I am impressed with the work done by him. Dr. David Ditsworth's name is well known in the field of spine surgery, by surgeons and equipment makers.

Regarding notability criteria: he has made "widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his specific field." Also, he is known for "originating a significant new concept". I will try to make the article better and to meet all Wikipedia policies. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. Boompoint22 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even after multiple revisions this is an advertisement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being one of 4000 board certified specialists is hardly a claim of significance. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. A promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 2 May 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. J04n(talk page) 18:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dewitt Jones[edit]

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

Few sources used for citations, and most are on a single subject. I could not find news coverage in WP:RS either. RobP (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two films that he directed were nominated for academy awards. This page does need TNT and some better sources though.104.163.140.141 (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that there is significant COI as well, as the main contributor Moniqueboucher works for Jones [32]. If we are going to keep it, it definitely needs a TNT.Theredproject (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep It appears that under a bare-bones minimum view of 'has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.' As an Oscar is a significant reward, and two can can be construed as the minimum of several, this is literally the bottom of the barrel for notability in the film industry. Definately needs work to read less like a promotional piece.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I did a little cleanup, but can't find much on his work at National Geographic - I'm basing this vote on the two films nominated for Academy awards. The fact that they were both the same year - a rarity - puts this over the top for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:50, 4 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Mathew[edit]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable actor that fails to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject expect this interview published back in 2016 and can't see if he played a major role in films listed in the article. This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, maybe he'll be notable in future but not right now. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR as they have only made minor appearances in two films (third film is due to be released on 10 May 2018 but actor is reprising his role as a minor character.) Also fails WP:SIGCOV.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the multiple significant roles in notable productions needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 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 no consensus. Keep has a plurality, but there are also several merge/redirect and delete opinions that can't be easily dismissed. Sandstein 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiral Tipirneni[edit]

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

Candidate for office, her only coverage is pretty routine, even if she is running in a "special election" page still fails WP:N. If she wins the special election then the article can be kept/recreated. Most of the sources are just WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type and volume that's expected of a congressional candidate.

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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As yet unelected candidates for office do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se. She needs to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable as a politician, and otherwise needs to already have been notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides her candidacy. The claim on the talk page, further, is that she is notable because she "has received national media coverage", but a candidate does not magically clear that bar the moment one piece of more than local coverage exists. It takes a volume of nationalized coverage that's approaching Christine O'Donnell proportions — O'Donnell got so much national coverage that her article is actually twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual senator who defeated her — to make a candidate a special case over and above most other candidates. Just one piece of nationalized coverage is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she is not independently notable from her political campaign. SportingFlyer talk 08:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018, and merge any useful content there, which ought to be the standard procedure in such cases. Of course, the article will be recreated if she is elected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this AfD could have waited until after the election, which was my plan. Keep if she wins, redirect if she loses. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope - once you're notable, you're always notable. She is not yet notable, therefore this is a valid AfD. SportingFlyer talk 17:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would've made it much easier to determine whether or not she is notable if we knew if she's a member-elect to the House or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. That's why this is WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose you're right. ~~So, delete, but I may have to come back and change my vote on Tuesday.~~ – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why did I say delete? Redirect. It's a reasonable search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment - Vote the same but below Wikipedia needs to learn that we don't have firm rules about elections and that our guide post is WP:N. Do more sources need to be added? Certainly. But a quick search of news (you can do it at the top of the page), lists national RS after RS. These are different times because these elections are happening in the context of Donald Trump. Special elections are seen in this national context. That is the reality of all these special elections, from Jon Ossoff to Conor Lamb.Casprings (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG does not appear to be met here. Much of the coverage where her name is mentioned are passing mentions, or about her campaign, or the general political environment. There's very little about her, and none of it appears likely to be WP:SUSTAINED. Unless she wins. Mentioning Ossoff and Lamb is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Ossoff really did get national attention, while this race is more localized. Lamb, he won. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning a congressional seat may make a person immediately notable but not yet winning or even losing does not make a person automatically not notable. Notability is completely based on whether the person has been significantly noted in several reliable sources with regional and national audience. Tipirneni has been noted in such sources with significant detail and frequency. She is notable whether or not she wins the election on April 24th. Keep, no matter what happens next week. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 03:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muboshgu explains it well above. Yes her name has been mentioned in non-local media outlets, but its entirely about her campaign in this "special" but Routine election. Jon Ossoff is the standard on when elections candidates become notable and this article does not meet that. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ErieSwiftByrd and Muboshgu: I disagree. I ask you to look at the many national media sources I have added to the article. Also remember that she is headed to a close loss and, unlike Jon Ossoff, she will be running in the regular election in November. A marginal loss in a Republican controlled district will likely garner continued coverage in the media. I predict that even if we redirect this page, we will likely go back to the current version of the article very soon.---Coffeeandcrumbs 23:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? The Fox News factoid piece? That is about her, but all of the other ones are about the race, not about Tipirneni. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I am starting to understand the distinction. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about The New Republic article? That seems more than routine.---Coffeeandcrumbs 02:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018. We have generally treated the campaign as notable, but not necessarily the candidates in the election (even with candidates running for a U.S. House seat in a special election), because the coverage of the candidate is within the context of one event (in this case, an electoral contest). The reason for this is that candidates, even major party nominees running for Congress in the United States, regularly (if not often) fade back into obscurity and generally are low-profile individuals. Any relevant details about a candidate can live on the page for the election, including major biographical pieces as well as major campaign themes (reliably sourced). That all said, it is not advisable to start an AfD within a week (or two) of an election. It can be interpreted as unnecessary interference in the electoral process and votes may change if a subject wins their election. --Enos733 (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a Redirect. But was changed back and forth on multiple occasions during the last month. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy Close I've requested a speedy close at WP:AN. Having this discussion occur during the election is absurd. I'm neutral as to that speedy close being a keep or a redirect (or the elusive "speedy no consensus"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting per discussion here. Since the subject lost the election, her notability is not guaranteed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reuping my keep vote from above. Again, people (and the events they take part in), need to be seen in context. Normally, we wouldn't keep bios from people who loss elections for US congress. I understand that. However, this should be seen in the context of what is happening in US politics. Right now, these special elections are seen by WP:RS as highly significant because they are seen by WP:RS as a key indicator for the political environment under President Trump. Moreover, these events are significant enough, the people involved in them are WP:N, even if they lose. A simple question to ask is this. In WP:10Y, would someone who wants to study this period want these bios or not? We are here to be useful, now and in the future, and not to hold to some firm rules.Casprings (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't vote twice. It's misleading to the closing admin to write "Keep" in bold twice. I suggest you strike one. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Casprings. --Fadesga (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Casprings. The alternatives are worse. Wikipedia's election articles have been limited to horse-race information for many years now. Candidates, (viable or not) are only allowed a link to their own campaign website, a list of endorsements (if any), and a few words describing themselves (e.g., physician, former state senator, businessman, physicist). Therefore, those recommending Merge are being misleading as this article's information will not be moved, but will disappear. That is a fact. Those recommending Redirect or Delete are actually recommending the only information available to Wikipedia's readers should be a candidate's own campaign website, UNLESS that candidate is already an incumbent of a political office (or perhaps a reality TV star). I don't believe that view properly reflects the mission of Wikipedia. People rely on Wikipedia for reliable information. I don't believe write-ins and no-hopers (for example, those polling in the single digits with no money and no serious third-party coverage) should have their own articles, but that is not the situation here. Congress is, arguably, more important than any video game yet an imaginary character is deemed notable but someone who could plausibly impact the future of over 350 million people in the U.S. alone is not? Wikipedia has better goals and priorities than that, and Wikipedians must live up to that. 174.197.11.200 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People rely on Wikipedia for information about topics that pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, not topics that are temporarily newsy. The test a person has to pass to qualify for an article is not just "does some media coverage exist?", but "does some media coverage exist in a context that makes her a person readers will still be looking for information about in 10, 20 or 50 years?". Officeholders clear that test, while candidates normally do not — every candidate in every election always generates some media coverage in that context, so just having some campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself to deem a candidate as passing GNG and therefore exempted from having to pass NPOL. If she does not already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then the test that a candidate has to pass to get included in Wikipedia because candidate is not "does some media coverage exist?", because some media coverage never, ever doesn't exist for any candidate — the test she has to pass is "does enough media coverage exist to deem her a special case over and above every other candidate in every other election", and the sourcing here is not demonstrating that Hiral Tiperneni passes that standard. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject meets WP:GNG, so WP:NPOL is not that applicable. There are profiles covering her life and career; this is not routine coverage. I.e.: Who is Hiral Tipirneni? What to know about the Arizona congressional candidate, Fox News, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is the sourcing here demonstrating her as a special case who's somehow more notable than every other candidate in every other election who always gets as much (or more) campaign coverage as this article cites? Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG is certainly met here. There are numerous articles covering the election and Tipernini herself that fit WP:RS.Tvlover19 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the others. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018 per WP:NPOL, no evidence of notability independent of the special election; keeping would be reflection of recentism. Mélencron (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018. Those arguing to keep have failed to demonstrate that this is not a case of WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E. Yes, much has been written about her but all of it, as far as I can tell, because of her running in this one election. Our policies and guidelines advise against creating stand-alone articles for living people who have not been notable outside a single event (election) and instead, per WP:ATD, the information should be merged to the article about the election. If and when she runs again or does something else noteworthy, the article can be recreated. Regards So Why 11:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is running again. Why take the page down if she already meets the standard you mention in your last sentence.Casprings (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the sources say. Citing the AP source here: "She said Tuesday night that she plans to run in November's general election and told supporters not to give up the cause." (emphasis added). Plans change. Plus, this coverage is again only related to the same event, i.e. the election she just lost. It's not coverage of the new election or her as a candidate in the next election but as the candidate of the losing election. Regards So Why 15:10, 4 May 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. So Why 11:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Ganesh[edit]

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

Actors 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:ACTORBIO. The article claims the subject has acted in two films (one of which is not notable by WP standards). The page further state she acted in some TV dramas but apparently major role in only one drama. Given all this, I think she fails WP:ACTORBIO

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails GNG as well. I would say Wikipedia:NotJustYet applies here Saqib (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any evidence of notability at all not even mentions, Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:02, 28 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Through the Out Door (band)[edit]

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

Band is possibly non-notable. Did a quick google search with the name of the band as keyword, first pops up an unrelated album. Searching "Steve Cullins" with the name of band and still nothing relevant shows up, so unable to find a reliable source to prove its existence and notability. I would also like to mention that the author created a page called "1936 Lagos UFO incident", and I was unable to find any related information online and I did tag that page as G3-hoax. In Through the Out Door (band) was originally tagged as A7 but an admin declined it. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 03:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had intention of starting this AfD, but forgot. Presently, this looks like another hoax, unless there's sources that can prove me wrong. With lack of even evidence of existence, then it is clearly non notable, even if it really exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% a hoax. --Jessietail (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: looking very much like a hoax... no evidence of the band or their albums on Amazon, Discogs or any listing sites, no evidence of a platinum certification on Music Canada's database, no news coverage even from local media... even if they did really exist, they clearly don't pass WP:BAND. Richard3120 (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merely to pile on the same logic... This one is either a hoax or a hopeless attempt at creative writing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unreferenced article about a band, whose strongest claim to potential WP:NMUSIC notability (a platinum album) is plainly verifiable as false due to the lack of an entry in the CRIA's easily consulted database of record certifications. This is exactly why I always point out that NMUSIC notability is not conferred by what an article says, but by how well it references what it says: people can and do lie in Wikipedia articles about notability claims the topic doesn't actually have in reality. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, cannot find anything to verify existence or album sales. Eagleash (talk) 12:38, 30 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. Hut 8.5 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eli (film)[edit]

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

This has not even begun filling yet. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It filmed in January. --Nicholas0 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no source saying it filmed in January 2018. Among the sources listed, the closest is a prediction from December 2017 that filming would BEGIN on January 29, 2018, with no mention of the filming end date. Release is not scheduled until 2019. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. It is not yet possible to determine if this film is, or is likely to be, notable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF, plus WP:TOOSOON. This should not be a article until filming is finished. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:C1C6:47D6:2DA1:EB05 (talk) 15:39, 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 20:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert John Rushford[edit]

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

This has been created for a candidate to an unspecified election but presumably the upcoming Victorian election. He has held no elected office and his business activities do not appear to be notable. Grahame (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's actually a past candidate, for Albert Park in 1999, and as far as I can tell is not running in 2018. Not even the vaguest suggestion of notability here. Frickeg (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell there is almost nothing to be found on the subject despite their active period being aligned with the start of the WWW, so fails WP:GNG let alone NPOLITICIAN or NPROFESSIONAL. Note that the article as written seems to have a serious WP:POV problem - states the subject ran a very successful law practice BUT fails to mention the subject was struck off for legal malpractice - this is even in one of the cited (official) external references !? Aoziwe (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - See what appears to be a Keep by an IP on the talk page. Aoziwe (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as election candidates — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL as a politician, and otherwise he qualifies for an article only if he can be properly demonstrated and reliably sourced as having preexisting notability for some other reason besides the candidacy itself. But nothing else, either in the article or in the IP's misplaced talk page comment, passes a notability criterion at all. The only two properly footnoted references in the article were both WP:CIRCULAR citations to other Wikipedia articles, which I've stripped because we're not allowed to do that — and the remaining "external links" are not notability-supporting references either, but primary sources. This is not the stuff, or the sourcing, of encyclopedic notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article has been edited by WP:SPA with same name as the subject - possible WP:COI. They removed the negative external link citing strike off for malpractice, which is an official Government publication. Aoziwe (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected political candidate; fails notability guidelines. Eagleash (talk) 21:32, 28 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. As pointed out, association with notable subjects does not establish notability. So Why 11:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Duffy[edit]

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

Previously deleted as A7, recreated with new sources, but a date with Gronk and an association with Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian does not add up to fame. Listed as an "actress", but her IMDb page only lists two parts, one an unnamed child role in a handful of TV episodes over a decade ago, and the other in a film with a "TBD" release date. bd2412 T 00:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-this is not a gossip magazine. All sources are simply "look who is dating Rob Gronkowski." ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the only claims to notability are the celebrity name-drops, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Other than that, she produces a podcast based on celebrity gossip and this may become a web series. So what? She's just not notable in her own right. Neiltonks (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand how she may not seem the most notable, but according to WP:INHERITED, she is notable. She is associated with several popular celebrities and has worked with them as well. You can say that the page needs improvement, but i don't think nominating it for deletion makes too much sense. That would mean several TV show hosts that have their own shows are not notable. That's like saying Rhett and Link aren't notable or weren't notable when their page was created. She is especially popular in the fashion industry, and you can see that with her instagram (28.1k followers). This is my first time that i've tried to create a page but i'm positive that she is notable. she's also had Aly Raisman on her podcast along with other celebrities like Paris Hilton. SennaNiks (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:INHERITED, being "associated with several popular celebrities" is precisely what does not qualify a subject for an article. bd2412 T 11:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly written by someone close to the subject - "Look at me, I know Kim Kardeshian and have my own podcast and dated Rob Gronkowski", Get lost. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the "F off" comment - As explained here I can't stand people who are all "look at me, look at me" which is why I made that offhand remark, Anyway I've now changed it to "Get lost", Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, wow. Number 1, there's no need to curse. Moving on...It's not that Jordan Duffy is just "associated" with the celebrities. She has worked with them. She has her own podcast, and if you know anything about the fashion or beauty industry right now, she's quite a big deal. Give a look at her references and you'll see what I mean. There's still much more that I can add to it but just haven't gotten around to do it. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be a collaborative platform? How is she not notable? I just don't see it. The way you guys are thinking, especially User:Davey2010, it seems like you're just against her having a wikipedia page..?? Like, what? With User:Davey2010's logic, Kim Kardashian would never have a page. Her dating Rob Gronkowski is a fact that is backed with good sources. I haven't surrounded the entire page with that information, have i? How is she not notable? Please explain. SennaNiks (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero indications of notability per WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Working with somebody is equal to being associated with them, in Wikipedia parlance, and it does not count towards notability. Being someone's "date" is even more of a non-thing as far as notability goes - Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine and absolutely cannot start listing romance rumours because that list would never end. If there are in fact references showing notability (none of the current refs shows that), please add them. --bonadea contributions talk 10:03, 30 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. So Why 11:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Clark[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; subject does not have significant coverage about her nor did contribute to anything widely recognized per WP:ANYBIO. Being a relative of a famous chess player does not confer notability WP:INVALIDBIO. What are your thoughts? Damselfly7 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- seems as though her claim to notability is that she wrote articles about her husband, who played chess. Sources are in reference to her husband. Unless I'm msising something ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is somewhat interesting that she appears to have lived to be 106, but that falls short of the supercentarian standard, so we are left with nothing upon which to hang notability. bd2412 T 01:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote withdrawn on the basis of continuing improvement to the article. bd2412 T 02:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her claim of notability is as a muse, similar to Lou Andreas-Salomé and to Alma Mahler, who were also artists, but whose most notable aspect is as muses. She lived to 95, not to 106 (there was an earlier typo in the date of birth). I read the references to be about her personally, not her husbands, although it is about her in relation to her famous husbands.In particular, the chapter about her in "Russian Silhouettes" (where she is the seventh of the "Russian Silhouettes") almost hardly talks about Capablanca at all, except as a canvas on which to tell a story about Olga. I claim notability based on her having been written about in the linked sources (including books), having multiple very famous husbands, and being a muse at least to one (Capablanca's "I shall regain my crown for you"^[1], for example). Dmoskovich (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1] - "The Genius and the Princess" by Edward Winter

Keep The article has been improved since the recent AfD. How does it detract from notability of a writer if the main topic of her writings was her husband? (in Olga's case, one of her 4 husbands.) We have many articles about important "muses" see for example Alice Liddell, Maud Gonne and Nora Barnacle (Lewis Carroll, WB Yeats, and James Joyce respectively.) This is an interesting and informative article that our readers should be able to find. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. [[User:Ma[[]]rk the train|MT Train]]^Talk 03:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I researched this woman and greatly improved the article with more information and citations. I wouldn't consider this person a writer, though she was also notable for her writings. She was married to two very notable people, and is discussed at length in their biographies. I would consider her a socialite as her main claim to fame is in relation to her husbands. That being said, a lot has been written about her. Current sourcing of the article now satisfies WP:GNG. WP:INHERITED states that someone doesn't automatically get an entry for being related to someone famous but "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." And that is the case here. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is dead so there are no promotional issues. Most subjects that continue to be noticed years after death are kept at AFD. Reliable sources discuss her. Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 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.