The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ringwald[edit]

Dan Ringwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "Currently playing" for a team that folded several years ago? Riiiight. Anyway, undistinguished career in the mid-minors, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 01:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG and his career doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. PKT(alk) 12:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:49, 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 and redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. The idea that playmate of the year is a significant award had long not been accepted Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Sanches[edit]

Stacy Sanches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:ENT and significant RS coverage not found.

First AfD in 2011 closed as "Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban." The subject has not become any more notable since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 per longstanding consensus practice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:ANYBIO for "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". She was Playboy's Playmate of the Year for 1996. That is well-known and significant award that is a household name and is only awarded to one person a year. The suggested redirect lists only Playmates of the month, which is a lower honor. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Or Redirect. Per Lonehexagon. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:53, 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. Being borderline notable doesnt overcome arguments about tnt. Promo or upe. No objection to someone trying something better based on thorough sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shehzad Poonawalla[edit]

Shehzad Poonawalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He is a non notable politician, does not hold any constitutional post or any senior post in any political party. He is in news by making various allegations Sonia89f (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage found in notable news outlets, hence meets WP:GNG. E.g. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/absolutely-false-says-shehzad-poonawalla-after-congress-denies-links-with-cambridge-analytica/articleshow/63399805.cms https://www.indiatoday.in/india/delhi/story/shehzad-poonawalla-releases-cambridge-analytica-s-pitch-to-congress-party-1213804-2018-04-17 https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/who-is-shehzad-poonawalla-the-man-who-challenged-rahul-gandhis-candidature-for-congress-presidential-polls/953794/ https://www.news18.com/news/politics/family-ties-in-rival-parties-do-not-always-end-the-poonawalla-way-1596119.html https://www.firstpost.com/politics/shehzad-poonawalla-hits-back-at-congress-says-he-became-whistle-blower-to-reveal-rigged-party-president-election-4240253.html Ross-c (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The sources already in the article are more than sufficient to establish notability. Furthermore the sources found by Ross-c only strengthen the argument. Finally, nom gives no valid reasons for deletion. There's no requirement that an article subject "hold any constitutional post or any senior post in any political party." Nom states that "He is in news by making various allegations" as if this disqualifies him from having an article. In fact, it does not. In fact, it qualifies him. Just edit the claim a little: "He is in news." By nom's own admission, therefore, he's notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In real life, I have been in the news too. But did it make me notable? Not at all. The Banner talk 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly speedy Delete The article is essentially promotion for him. I suggest G11,if any other admin agrees with me. Notability is a relatively minor consideration here--the relevant basic policy is NOT ADVOCACY. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional article. No evidence of any notability, as there is no evidence in the article that he was successful in any of the cases he brought to court. The Banner talk 07:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Nom has canvassed admins to this discussion czar 23:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• I have made some limited neutral post seeking opinion of admins. Notification is polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and to find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Sonia89f (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - my vote above stands. If the article is promotional, then WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case: please fix it. The Banner talk 07:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ross-c. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability is marginal at best, while the article is a highly promotional form of WP:ADVOCACY. Likely UPE / COI-based editing based on behavioural evidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks promtional to me, and fails WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral there's certainly a ton of coverage on him from Indian newspapers, mostly for his challenging of his political party's nomination of a relative of Gandhi. He also appears on television, and a search brings up article after article with his name in it. I don't have any problems with blanking the article as it stands as there are a ton of problems with it. I also have no idea how to gauge notability in this instance due to general unfamiliarity with Indian politics. I think it's closer than the delete votes have given it credit for, but I am also unwilling to argue for it as a keep under WP:GNG and due to the number of problems with the article as pointed out above, especially by DGG. SportingFlyer talk 04:31, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled[edit]

Stalled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete No credible 3rd party sources about this movie apart from blog style reviewers, Website doesn’t work, no evidence of screening anywhere bar a film festival Daps166 (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 13:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 13:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has been fully reviewed in many reliable sources as per this link page and while many of those links are unreliable the following ones are considered WP:FilmProject reliable sources: Aint it Cool News, Bloody Disgusting, Screen Daily, Screen Anarchy, Starburst and Exclaim and have full reviews so it passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No credible 3rd party sources about this movie apart from blog style reviewers, Website doesn’t work, no evidence of screening anywhere bar a film festival, doesn’t meet notability guidelines Daps166 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

only one vote is allowed and there are six reliable sources full reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The reviews cited above are not blogs but established independent reliable sources as confirmed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. Reviews in high quality sources such as Screen International and printed film magazines such as Starburst are strong signs of notabity that together with the other rs reviews mean WP:GNG is passed, irrespective of theatrical release which in the era of netflix will become less common. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the list of reviews is more than sufficient. Certainly with 71 checking through all of them for the reliable ones is a little brutal, but having a look at the ones pointed out is worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of reviews, some at least are RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources like this LIFFF award and Screen daily review means a lot to moview articles and are sufficient to pass GNG. Also there are more sources apart from them. –Ammarpad (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply_Justified_Productions[edit]

Simply_Justified_Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A small media company that appears to have been written by the company founder. Fails WP:COMPANY. Prod was declined by main editor on the grounds that the confusion between 'SJP' and 'Simply Justified Productions' makes it hard to show notability[1]

Per WP:BEFORE searches were done on both 'SJP' and 'Simply Justified Productions' in Google, Google News and Google News archive. There were a great many hits for SJP, none of which where for this company (SJP and the directors first name managed to find the directors linkedin and twitter pages). I found no RS for "simply justified productions" I'm afraid. Without any RS focusing on the company, I believe that it would be difficult to rewrite the article effectively, hence the nomination. (There are some references in the article, mostly focusing on projects that this company has worked for (I think), which may themselves me notable)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - advertising company inserting advertising into Wikipedia. No independent sources. Fails WP:NCORP Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - promotional. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 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 keep. There appears to be a consensus to keep. Any renaming of the article can be done either boldly or after discussion on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rokkyo Cho Economics Award[edit]

Rokkyo Cho Economics Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Google Search showed zero result on the award, or even the name Rokkyo Cho. Potentially a hoax. Cahk (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  07:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy as a hoax per G3. I can't find anything, and I mean *anything* anywhere. I've looked through Google Books and normal searches and I've got nothing-- there should at least be a note about someone receiving it somewhere on some academic's bio. The only reason I'm not tagging speedy delete right now is that I don't speak Korean and can't search for Korean sources. Nomader (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I still say !delete despite MarginalCost's notes. The coverage is all about people "receiving the award" but I'll be damned if I can actually find anything at all. I was able to find this article [2] which talks a bit more about why the award was founded but I don't think any of these notes we're pulling up establish any kind of notability. I don't think it passes GNG-- that says, if any Korean sources pop up, would definitely like to see those. Nomader (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move: Changing my vote to keep and move per 59.149.124.29's sourcing below, nice work. Inspecting them I think it addresses my concerns, really needed a Korean reader here. Nomader (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - unlikely to be a G3 hoax, as professor Choi's official CV hosted on the Columbia university website does mention his receipt of the award. It uses the "Cho Rokkyo" award (word order reversed) which might be relevant for anyone searching sources. (Interestingly, it also notes he was the inaugural recipient back in 2008, meaning either a) there's been some recipients since that we should be able to find, or b) the award is now defunct.) I will hold off on !voting for now in the hopes a Korean speaker might turn up more sources as Nomader suggests. MarginalCost (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Weak Keep - Note coverage of Taylor & Francis Group (though possibly just a press release, it's unclear to me immediately), and Press releases from Princeton and University of Tokyo on their own economists (Paul Milgrom & Michihiro Kandori) winning. It looks like some sources refer to it as the "Cho award" or the "Rok Kyo Cho award." See this blog post by notable economist Paul Milgrom for the connection to the shortened name. These are all pretty weak sources, but I think the underlying subject is notable. MarginalCost (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MarginalCost: One weird thing about the Milgrom post-- isn't he just quoting a press release based on those quotes? It doesn't look like that's his actual coverage there. Nomader (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 18:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and move to R. K. Cho Economics Prize, which appears to be the common name. I added coverage from South Korean newspapers to the article, which is somewhat uneven but on the whole seems enough to pass WP:GNG. Some years (e.g. 2008 and 2010) all that newspapers said about it was one line with the awardee's name, but in others (e.g. 2015 and 2017) they wrote a great-deal more about the awardee's work & the lecture they gave upon receiving the prize. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to R. K. Cho Economics Prize Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:57, 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 Speedy keep nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tedd Koren[edit]

Tedd Koren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. I have been asked to do this by QuackGuru (talk · contribs). Septrillion (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, since I created the page. Others can decide if it is kept, deleted or merged. But I have to admit it appears to lack significant coverage. There is some coverage. It could be kept or merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Koren Specific Technique. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have edited your comment to ensure that your !vote is counted by the AfD stats tool. Septrillion (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for the reasons QuackGuru listed. There seems to be a decent amount of sources which mention him, but most are not as in-depth as I would like. I'll go through the sources and see if the page can be improved in any way. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added some information, I will say there is a LOT of information on HighBeam but I do not have a subscription to that site. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Meets GNG with the sources, plus the hard to reach ones on HighBeam. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:14, 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.

Vitamin B3 complex[edit]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SusanLesch (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B3 complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Vitamin B3 complex is not listed in the most reliable nutrition sources. (I checked the two top textbooks.) This article adds unnecessary complexity for the reader. SusanLesch (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge Belongs somewhere. Springer is a decent publisher. Concept gets over 2,000 page views a month.[3]. Term has been mentioned since at least 1945 per [4]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please clarify. 1945 where? For pageviews, B vitamins gets 2,176/d, Vitamin B3 complex 77/d, and Vitamin B-3 only gets 2. Vitamin B3 redirects to this article instead of Niacin 1,862/d. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to make it clear that B vitamins is a much broader topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with the understanding that the page will eventually be expanded. Vitamin B-3 is a redirect to Niacin, whereas there is an abundance of sourcing that indicates that Niacin and Nicotinamide together make up a discrete B3 group. (Vitamin B3, however, redirects to the page about the complex. That needs to be sorted out. Maybe the two redirects should be merged with the "complex" page, with a pagename that omits "complex".) What seems to me to be confusing for readers is that, if they come here simply looking for Vitamin B3, there are really two different pages that they would need to find out about. Regardless of terminology, it is clear from sources that there is a notable topic of "Vitamin B3" as a whole, and we should have a page that reflects that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tryptofish, I agree with you. What I can't support is the wrong article hogging the namespace "Vitamin B3". Then some kind soul inserted a hyphen in "Vitamin B-3". Vitamin B complex is a real thing. It's all eight B vitamins in one pill. Please keep this simple. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, and what you say is very reasonable. It seems to me that the solution to the problem would be a merge/rename discussion, rather than deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Vitamine B3 represents less than half the page views for the article in question.[5] Happy to see the article renamed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging this article back into what's now "niacin" sounds good to me. Then please rename the redirect "Vitamin B-3" to "Vitamin B3". I don't know your protocol but the way forward is probably in Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion or the following section. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming the outcome here is to keep, I think there needs to be a more thorough discussion about the ultimate pagename. There should be consideration of the relationship between niacin and nicotinamide, and there should probably still be an overview page that includes both. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. "Vitamin B3 complex" does not appear in either Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease or in Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. From Google, it seems to be some kind of commercial skin product. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Tryptofish rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to either to B vitamins or vitamin B3. If I understand correctly, term "vitamin B complex" actually refer to all B vitamins, as described, for example, here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SusanLesch: Now that you have supported a merge, as opposed to outright deletion, we have the possibility of going to the procedure at WP:AFD#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). As of this time, no editor has endorsed "delete", so this remains an option so long as no one does endorse "delete". At this time, we do not have consensus as to what exact form any merge, rename, or redirect would take, so that needs to be a separate discussion, on the talk page of of one of the pages involved (with "see" notices on the others). If you would be willing to take those steps, that would be a good resolution of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's keep this open per Doc James who led me here. We already explained the intricacies here. Somebody else may wish to merge and then we can use Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion. If they don't I am happy to follow through with Tryptofish's suggestion. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Then open it stays. But I'm going to insist that any final decision about merging go through Wikipedia:Proposed mergers per Wikipedia:Merging#Controversial mergers. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine. Because of their backlog if you want to start that or want me to start that please holler. Did you know that vitamin B3 is made from tryptophan? I expect you did. 😃 -SusanLesch (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! Actually, looking more closely at Proposed mergers, I agree that it's backlogged and I also realize that it wasn't what I meant. I was actually thinking of WP:MERGEPROP, with a local discussion. Woops. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please ping me if I'm needed. Here's a quote from Oregon State's Linus Pauling Institute on niacin. "Dietary precursors of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), including nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, and nicotinamide riboside, are collectively referred to as niacin or vitamin B3." -SusanLesch (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B3 complex appears in zero other languages, Niacin in 62, and Vitamin B complex (redirect) and B vitamins in 53 languages. I look to the French for wisdom sometimes. They actually have an article on [Vitamin B3]. It says, sort of like Oregon State, "La vitamine B3 (C6H5NO2) est une vitamine hydrosoluble qui correspond à deux molécules : la niacine (acide nicotinique) et son amide, la nicotinamide, parfois appelée niacinamide." -SusanLesch (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to simple move it to the term Vitamin B3. Found a ref for a third form made the move and added a number of more references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Thank you for trying but no deal. My !vote to "merge" was to merge your one sentence into "niacin". Also I object (again) to this borderline WP:FRINGE "complex" hogging the namespace "vitamin B3". Martha Stipanuk, your choice of new sources, received nothing but accolades from my professor. That may be why it hurts me so much to see her textbook used like you have done. "Vitamin B3 complex" does not appear in her book Biochemical, Physiological & Molecular Aspects of Human Nutrition but somehow you cited her four times for your four sentence article. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B3 is not simple niacin so that would be a bad merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what you say goes and (to pick a few) French, German, Spanish, and Italian are all wrong? And all three textbooks cited here are wrong? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We really should not try to settle merge or rename issues here. That will have to be the next discussion. For now the question is whether or not the consensus is to delete, or to keep pending that future discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, My very best wishes, and Doc James, I am happy to proceed with WP:MERGEPROP. Where do you want your local discussion? May I please suggest Talk:Niacin? Do you want me to close this AfD? I will have limited time after today. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:50, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Burke (ice hockey)[edit]

Greg Burke (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played at the highest level of professional roller hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasons stated by DJSasso. --SP17 (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes both WP:HOCKEY, and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions Where is the significant independent coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? There's none in the article and my own search didn't find any. How does he meet WP:NHOCKEY? He doesn't as far as I can tell. Where is the SNG for roller hockey? I don't see any and WP:NSPORTS mentions competing at the highest level (eg., world championships). Are there any sources that show he competed at either the IIHF Inline Hockey world championships or the FIRS Inline Hockey world championships? It's not clear to me that competing in the first pro inline league gives automatic notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria says "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." (bolding mine) Being that RHI was the highest professional roller hockey league he meets WP:NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And do you have some sort of source that indicates that RHI was in fact the highest professional roller hockey league. You have something to say that it was higher than the CERH? It is conjecture. The RHI had it moments, but they were brief, whereas the CERH has survived many years, but it is not exclusively professional.18abruce (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As you mention, not exclusively professional, whereas RHI was. Not to mention they play quad-rink hockey, which is a different sport than inline roller hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline doesn't say anything about leagues, it says the highest level. Since the IIHF allows professionals I don't see how the world championships are not a higher level than a short lived league. Sandals1 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it makes a distinction between professional and amateur. You have to be the highest in either of the two. While the IIHF tournaments allow professionals, they are still considered an amateur tournament. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known any sport that allowed professionals to legally compete in an amateur competition. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the major sports in the Olympics do now. Hockey, Basketball, Figure Skating, the list goes on and on. -DJSasso (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about professionals at the Olympics, but I don't know many people who call the Olympics an amateur competition--except for a few sports like boxing and wrestling (where professionals aren't allowed). It's like the open era in tennis, pros and amateurs could compete together but they were no longer considered amateur events. But I think we're off track so I'm sticking with my comment below. Papaursa (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG, nothing has been presented that satisfies either. The RHI is a notable league, participation in it does not infer notability. It did better than other roller leagues, but voting for inclusion simply because of participation there seems to be a serious stretch.18abruce (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was waiting to see if anyone responded to my questions, but it's been 3 days and I want to vote while this AfD is still open. Right now it appears that Burke doesn't meet the GNG or any SNG, so deletion seems like the only option to me. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the keep !voters haven't shown that he passes either a SNG or the GNG. My own search has come up with nothing. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As quoted above the SNG of WP:NSPORTS requires playing at the highest professional level, RHI was the highest professional level. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that maybe it wasn't, we only know for sure that north american media payed more attention to it than to professional competitions in Europe.18abruce (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  We do know it was, it pulled in the best players from around the world and had the highest attendance and the most international coverage. Typically the three things we look at when considering the highest level. At very worst case it could be considered the same level, but it certainly wasn't lower level than any other league in the world. -DJSasso (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete As I said above the world championships have to be considered the highest level. I don't think the case has been made that all players in a league that lasted only a few years in a minor sport are automatically notable. When in doubt, we should look at WP:GNG and I see no evidence he meets that.Sandals1 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did some research on the RHI and it was made up mainly of minor and junior league ice hockey players who used it to compete over the summer between ice hockey seasons. At best, players made a few thousand dollars for the season which means this seems akin to semi-pro baseball (i.e., nobody was earning a living doing it). To claim that merely playing in this league confers notability seems to be a stretch. Nobody has provided any evidence he meets WP:ANYBIO or has significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. I don't see how editors are claiming WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG are met. The burden of proof is on showing notability and that hasn't been done. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both WP:NHOCKEY & WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (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 delete. bd2412 T 20:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Noron[edit]

Mat Noron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG. He has not played in a fully pro league and his one appearance for Cambodia was not a Tier 1 match, meaning the article also fails WP:NSPORT. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While it is a Tier 1 match that he played for in Cambodia v Laos (a tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the “A” Representative Teams of the Members concern) it wasn't a competitive match and instead just a friendly. So still fails WP:NFOOTY Players who have played in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match. NZFC^(talk) 23:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NZ Footballs Conscience: You've misinterpreted the wording/punctuation of WP:NFOOTY. It'd help if it were better laid out, but what it means is:

Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in

1. any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, or
2. in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or
3. the Olympic Games.

So notability via FIFA Tier 1 international can be in a friendly: it's the confederation level matches that have to be competitive, e.g. matches involving Gibraltar in Euro qualifing before they were admitted to FIFA. The wording was updated with this edit following a discussion here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the users in the above two !votes cite WP:NFOOTBALL in their arguments for deletion, I'm going to use it to reason the article be kept. Per criterion one, players who have played in a "Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA" are presumed notable. Both the team he played for and their opponent are FIFA affiliated. Why NFT list the match as a "Non Fifa match" I don't know. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the match wasn't sanctioned at tier 1, but it clearly wasn't. According to the FIFA website, Cambodia have played only one official match this year, an Asian Cup Qualifier against Afghanistan that Noron didn't play in. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Noron won his first cap in a friendly against Laos: [6]. I cannot determine whether this game was a Tier 1 match or not. Several reputable websites have the game listed. Others, such as FIFA's, do not. The ones that mention the game show Noron started, but only played 27 minutes. Because of the difficulty of determining whether he qualifies for WP:NFOOTY, and because I can't find anything WP:GNG (albeit with a language barrier), I'm going to vote delete on WP:TOOSOON grounds. SportingFlyer talk 05:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on previous analysis as above, appears he doesn't qualify as he hasn't played a proper league match. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:03, 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. Keep arguments are arguments to avoid and do debunk the NOT argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish[edit]

List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just Trivia. Wikipedia is not a stats site. Tvx1 21:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Winners okay (List of Formula One Grand Prix winners), but podium finishers? Noooo. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again see the 5^th bullet point down on WP:IDL. SSSB (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ... per WP:NOTSTATS. This is no more notable than List of baseball pitchers who have won at least one game and, as such, isn't discussed by anybody outside of stats sites.

Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Again see WP:OTHERSTUFF and the WP:NOSTATS is discussed below, but I will reiterate, nostats specifically targets ""indiscriminate" stats and stats that "lack context" this isn't indiscriminate as I proved its notability below and it does not lack context, the context is very clear. SSSB (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - I don't see the problem, this article contains as much trivia as other such articles, (List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton, List of red-flagged Formula One races, List of Formula One broadcasters to name just a few), if these are permitted then I fail to see why List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish should be deleted. SSSB (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC). Just realised that this AFD fits the 5^th bullet point down on I don't like it, furthermore having read the resons for deletion and what wikipedia is not, I don't see anything that would cause this article to be deleted. SSSB (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SSSB (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

• See WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tvx1 15:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Over two-third of the included drivers are already listed in the article on grand-prix winners. There is no evidence that they are independently notable as podium finishers as well. This is just stats trivia and it is actually almost entirely based on StatsF1, a dedicated stats site. And that's where this information belongs, not on Wikipedia which is not a stats site. There is nothing here demonstrating notability of the subject.Tvx1 17:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Two thrids of drivers appering in another list is not a reason for this to be deleted, the two lists list a different achivevemts and a thrid of the drivers don't appear on the list for grand prix winners. As for What Wikipedia is not it talks about "Statistics that lack context" and therefore I think that List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish should stay as it does not lack context. As for the notabillity, I agree that the article could do with more links to rove notabillity but these will be added with time WP:ATD, however her are some source which I think prove notabillity, Lance Strolls Azerbaijan podium proves he belongs in Formula 1, |100 podiums for Hamilton, Hulkenberg's 7 missed chances to score his first F1 podium. These sources all prove that podium finishes are considered a major achivment and therefore I think that this list is notable. SSSB (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And that's just what it is your opinion. What you think. Your sources prove the notability of a couple of independent events. By now, Hamilton and Hülkenberg are notable for much more than merely having achieved a podium finish. The sources you cite do not prove that the whole list of them is notable.Tvx1 17:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. Its not just my opinion, Hulkenberg's 7 missed chances to score his first F1 podium suggests that Hulkenberg would be more notable had he had a F1 podium and Lance Strolls Azerbaijan podium proves he belongs in Formula 1 suggests that Stroll would not be as notable had he not achived a F1 podium, these sources prove that it isn't just me who thinks that F1 podiums are notabale but that F1 journalists also consider a podium a notable achivment, weather it be the first or the hundredth or the fact you haven't achived a podium after several seasons. These sources are just a handfull of podium related articles where the podium is at the centre of the article, you have agnolged that these sources document something which is notable, if individual podiums (or failing to achive a podium after a long time in the F1) are notable I fail to see why all podiums wouldn't be notable and therefore I don't see why a this list is not, in your eyes, notable. SSSB (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - Just realised that this AFD fits the 5^th bullet point down on I don't like it, furthermore having read the resons for deletion and what wikipedia is not, I don't see anything that would cause this article to be deleted. SSSB (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You cannot cast a vote twice. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.(moved to after original argument to make one arguemnt and therefore one vote.)SSSB (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SSSB. 81.102.239.214 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — 81.102.239.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Pretty certain that this is simply SSSB logged out.Tvx1 20:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, and what makes you say that? SSSB (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A random IP that has never before edited wikipedia suddenly arrives to make exactly one edit on this site to precisely the AFD on an article you created to state "Keep per SSSB after you had already made two votes yourself. How stupid do you think wikipedias really are?Tvx1 15:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't vote twice on purpose, I merely wanted to add to what I had already argued and put it at the bottom to keep the discussion in chronological order, as for this random user, (s)he undoubtled looked at the article, saw it was nominated for deletion, didn't think it should be deleted and added his opinion as (s)he is invited to do. SSSB (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And you really wan't us to believe that the first ever Wikipedia article this IP stumbled on is a recently-created, little advertised, AFD-subjected article on podium finishers? Now what which way you turn it, this edit is suspicious enough not be given much or any weight by whoever comes to judge the outcome of this discussion.Tvx1 17:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading WP:AFDSOCK I agree that it is suspicious and I apologise for my perhaps rude behaviour. I doubt it was the first but they found it and the result was their first edit. SSSB (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems as notable as other similiar articles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:07, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cardi B live performances[edit]

List of Cardi B live performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should not encourage more Fancruft. Several lists in Category:Lists of concerts and performances might also be examined. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. As of recent we do not have a precedent for lists of live performances for those very reasons underlined here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs performed live by Metallica. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cardi B. As the creator of the article, I understand I have a conflict of interest but do understand that this list alone probably does not constitute a separate article. However, to put it in the same category as the reasons for the deletion of the Metallica article is unfair. Those sources were all from the band's own website, whereas the sources in this article are from reputable media outlets. Also, this list is based off of televised performances only, which in my view, is not fancruft. The Metallica article was based off of every performance. I think televised performances are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia because it is not only fans who talk about them. Unlike concerts which only fans of the artist would go, many televison shows are watched by viewers who don't watch because the artist is going to be there, like Saturday Night Live. Also, Britney Spears, Madonna, and Beyonce all have Televised performances sections in their live performance articles with sources from reputable media outlets. I think a list of televised performances for Cardi B is notable enough to be included, albeit not in a separate article. I believe it is useful information that can help general readers get a sense of how to judge an artist better. That is why I think, for the time being, it is merged with the Cardi B article and included in a subsection. Heartfox (talk) 04:19, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABViewer[edit]

ABViewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable software (CAD) program; the only significant independent reference is a review in a CAD-related journal [7], which isn't sufficient for a product like this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article includes not only a reference to a CAD-related journal but also references to other independent reliable sources too. E.g. Digital Engineering not only provides a written review on ABViewer but also has posted a video review on the software: http://www.digitaleng.news/virtual_desktop/2014/08/a-quick-view-of-cadsofttools-abviwer/; an article was printed in the magazine Digital Engineering (in German): https://www.digital-engineering-magazin.de//sites/default/files/magazine-pdf/DE_2011_03_archiv.pdf#page=53 There are several articles from the Cadalyst web site that also provides objective articles (http://www.cadalyst.com/collaboration/file-sharing-publishing/more-meets-eye-cadalyst-labs-review-6300 and http://www.cadalyst.com/general-software/cadalyst-labs-review-view-masters-5567) etc.

Moreover, the presented references are written not only in English but also in German. Publications in several languages also underline the software prominence. Publications in other languages can be added too if required.

I have also searched for more references using the provided tools (e.g. Google news, scholar sources etc.) As a result, I have added one more reference to the ABViewer article (https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-232267303.html). However, there are much more references to ABViewer in those sections. E.g. the Google news section includes such ABViewer references as http://www.tenlinks.com/news/cadsofttools-releases-abviewer-v12-1/; https://www.cad.cz/aktuality/77-aktuality/8007-cadsofttools-nabizi-abviewer-ve-verzi-12.html (in Czech); http://product.pconline.com.cn/itbk/software/wjgs/1305/3305400.html (in Chinese) etc. It shows one more time that ABViewer is known in different countries all over the world. If links to these sources should be added to the article as references too, please let me know.

What is more, I have found references to ABViewer in a number of scholar articles. E.g.: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22ABViewer%22. This again shows that people in different countries use ABViewer and mention it in their scientific works.--Olga cst (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bravo to Milowent Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake[edit]

McArthur Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced article about a small lake, whose only evident claim of notability under WP:GEOLAND is that it exists. Every lake on earth is not automatically presumed notable just because it exists, however -- unlike Papakomeka Lake, there's a lot more detail here, but it's all unreferenced and some of it has a serious credibility problem: does anybody genuinely believe, sans references, that a lake of just 1.5 square kilometres in size is actually divided into four organized districts with their own official names and flags? And after an obvious eyebrow-raiser like that, do we really believe, again without proper references, that the names of the lake islands are actually accurate, and do we care about cataloguing their litter situations at all? The lake exists, I won't deny that -- but after "it exists", literally everything else this article says about it is parked somewhere along the road that runs between unverifiability at best and outright bullshit at worst. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All lakes are notable, and a listing in a relevant govermnment database is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, all lakes are not automatically notable — GEOLAND is quite clear that there's a distinction between notable lakes and non-notable lakes, namely "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" — and inclusion in a government database, which includes every named lake that exists at all, is not enough to demonstrate notability if it's the only source that can be shown. And I note that you avoided addressing my point about how much of this article's content is problematic. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Per WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." This is about all I could dig up of any substance. It can't even be included in List of lakes of Ontario because it doesn't reach the minimum area. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are larger lakes in Idaho (McArthur Lake Wildlife Management Area) and British Columbia/Alberta (List of lakes in Yoho National Park), so perhaps afterward a redirect should point to the former, with a hatnote to the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Neutral: I don't know that every conceivable lake is notable, but this seems to be subject to enough commentary to be notable. not to mention the song:

  McArthur Lake is melting in the dark
  All the sweet, green icing flowing down
  Someone left the cake out in the rain
  I don't think that I can take it
  'Cause it took so long to bake it
  And never send this notable lake to AFD again
  Oh no!

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the obviously facetious suggestion that Jimmy Webb wrote Macarthur Park about this lake (which he very clearly did not), where does "enough" reliable source commentary about the lake exist to make it notable? Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There will be another lake article for me

For I will write it
There will be other minor geographical point stubs for me
Someone will AfD it
I will drink the secondary sources while they are warm
And never let you catch me citing a link farm
And after all the articles of my life
After all the articles of my life
You'll still be the one
The extremely notable, though filled with unverifiable information,

McArthur Lake of northern Ontario.

::--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely notable on what basis? You can't just keep asserting that if you're not showing any evidence to support that it's true. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the content is verifiable apart from existence, and likely some of it is a WP:HOAX. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 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) 00:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CanalCanalha[edit]

CanalCanalha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meeting WP:NWEB or GNG. In particular it seems a good example of NWEB's warning that famous does not mean notable. From its creation about a year ago until recently this had been a redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. If that's the final decision of this discussion that seems fine to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Without references and strong tendency of self-promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. That's only a collection of self-promotion external links. Bolhones (talk) 16:59, 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 20:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Trip[edit]

Culture Trip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Corporate spam, deleted once before. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture Trip. Still not notable, especially after the update of WP:NCORP. Vexations (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Malformed AfD fixed. This second nomination had been placed on the page for the first AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all but [4] are promotional releases, and [3] is also a dead link. ([4] is about Petr Kellner and does not mention Culture Trip.) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Trip is an excellent example of a flourishing, young UK-based digital company and deserves to stay if amended appropriately. Ndkty (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, tech start up failing ncorp, refs don't support notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill startup, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaye Washington (Damus)[edit]

Shaye Washington (Damus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be WP:1EVENT. reddogsix (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7 there's not even one notable event here. Her Facebook page and the White Pages (!) are certainly not acceptable, I've removed them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. How can you Say that there is not one notable event when there is in fact at least 3. Her being the first African American Flower Girl Designer to be featured in the Vogue’s bridal magazine is not notable. I surely. Would like to know what you all consider notable. Her being nominated for mother of the year is not notable. Which is all is he form of national news and headlines. Please explain what notable is because notable to means something that is important and worthy of attention and this is not, but this site is full of articles about individuals that does not even come close or equate to the accomplishments of Ms. Washington

Do not Delete: There are several notable and respectable references in regards to this article. Vogue House, The News, The New Paper, Exclusive Interviews with CBS and The Today’s Show, Magazine Feautures, News Paper Articles.

This woman has broke barriers and overcome homelessness and now helps the homeless. This previous event just shed light on things she had already accomplished.

• Delete I evaluated the sources and information, and searched for additional sources. From a Google News search,[8] it appears that she received quite a bit of significant coverage in many secondary, reliable sources in several countries. The problem is that all the coverage is in relation to the single event/video that was posted. I think this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. It's true that the subject's participation in the event was substantial, but the event itself does not seem to be notable enough for an entry (not enough in-depth coverage over time to indicate significance). If the event isn't notable enough for an entry (as indicated by continuing coverage), it means this woman's participation is not notable enough for an entry. That being said, if this person gets in the news with this much coverage for another event, or the event received continuing coverage over the next few months, or if the woman receives additional coverage about her as an individual (as opposed to in context with this event), that might be enough to satisfy notability. However, when I searched for additional sources, I couldn't find anything about this person except in relation to this event so I'm voting delete. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-Your argument actually contradicts the guidelines in which you are trying to uphold. You are saying you are basing your argument specifically on a google search. In which you said there were several reliable sources in other countries. Does it matter what country the sources came from, as this is a worldwide encyclopedia? Continuing coverage? The initial coverage was over two weeks ago and if you look on google the most recent was 2-3 days ago. Along with her soon to appearing on the Ellen show. Being nominated for Mother of the year and the Colorado’s Outstanding woman of the year awards. Again I vote do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd192581 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand where you're coming from. I have had articles deleted before and I know how frustrating it is. The problem with this article is all the coverage about her is in relation to a single event, and that doesn't automatically confer notability according to the Wikipedia guidelines. If you read WP:ONEEVENT, it states that someone must be known for more than a single event, or if they are known for a single event, their participation must be substantial AND the event must be notable. I have not see significant discussion about the event in a way that makes it seem notable. What would that Wikipedia article be named? Do you have citations for these awards that contain significant discussion about Shaye Washington? It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. This person needs to gain coverage about something unrelated to the event, or the event must continue to receive ongoing coverage to indicate that it's notable enough for its own entry. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’m also looking at articles like Danielle Bregoli. How do you get a Wikipedia page for saying “catch me outside”. Why is that even important to American history any anyone’s history for that matter. Jd192581 (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jd192581 Notability is not about importance, or value to history/humanity etc, but just that you have reach notability in the world as set out in the guidelines. Many of the modern 'celebrities' like Danielle Bregoli I also personally see little value in, however as you'll see on the article Danielle Bregoli she has been covered in many reliable sources over a period of time, and is now also 'notable' for her 'music' that has charted in multiple counties. Shaye Washington (Damus) so far only has sources for the single event, with the other claims unsourced. If Danielle Bregoli had nothing more than the coverage for the "catch me outside" viral video she also would be unlikely to have an article. Hope that explains the difference. KylieTastic (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could we possibly put this in Jd192581's draftspace so they can work on it a little more and then submit it again? Lonehexagon (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Any article up for deletion for notability (rather than copy vio etc) can be moved to the users area or draft if they user wants to continue to work towards notability - Always happy to see that. However in this case they have made no attempt to address any of the issues and find any sources for any of the many unsourced claims. KylieTastic (talk) 13:14, 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. Sandstein 16:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Shands[edit]

David Shands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Basically nothing that I can point to as being even an single in-depth reliable source. There's brief advertorial mention here, and that's pretty much it. Looks a lot like a guy who sells t-shirts at the mall, and wrote a self published book once. GMG^talk 16:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete does not meet WP:GNG, etc. Lacks coverage.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only does it lack coverage but the user who created the article repeatedly attempted to Vandalize and althrough a report at AIV was declined I think the creator of the article should be blocked as well Abote2 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit filter reports say he was trying to use all caps for emphasis. I do not think that indicates vandalism. I do think he is an WP:UPE based on all of this.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens-- a new(er) editor has started editing the page. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete biography of non notable person made up of unreliable sources and useless claim like coining the term “Sleepis4Suckers”. It is A7 material, but since it's being recreated then better this discussion. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm on the fence, but there are discussions of David Shands outside promotional materials. https://rollingout.com/2016/10/26/reaching-back-david-shands-saving-lives-success/ https://hotspotatl.com/3409899/reec-interviews-ceo-of-sleep-is-4-suckers-clothing-line-david-shands/ http://theurbandads.com/fatherhood-stories-david-shands-owner-sleep-is-4-suckers/ https://rollingout.com/2017/02/01/7-black-owned-businesses-watch-2017/ I would have thought that his 'Black Wall Street Tour' would have been notable, but I haven't yet found independent coverage of it. The article needs work. Ross-c (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 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 16:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geneotree[edit]

Geneotree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No coverage in reliable sources. --Michael White^T·C 16:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a sourceforge program, still being maintained but not heavily used, 43 downloads last week, refs in the article are primary, google showing routine bits and pieces for a free program. This has been a stub since 2008 with ~ 10 views a day. Szzuk (talk) 14:09, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Zafar Iqbal Warraich[edit]

Chaudhry Zafar Iqbal Warraich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Politicians 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:POLITICIAN. This one fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. The BLP cite two references (both unreliable) which actually refers to some other politician (hails from Rahim Yar Khan) with the same name, while this one (article claims head of Pahrianwali) belongs to Mandi Bahauddin.

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about this politician from Mandi Bahauddin therefore fails to meet basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Politicians at the local level are not automatically presumed notable under WP:NPOL, but the sources here are not reliable or notability-supporting ones for the purposes of making him a special case over and above most other non-notable local politicians. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom; fails WP:POLOUTCOMES Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Notability issue, therefore delete.  M A A Z   T A L K  23:54, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtiar Mahmud Kasuri[edit]

Bakhtiar Mahmud Kasuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Politicians 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:POLITICIAN. On the other hand, this BLP discusses the relatives of the subject, not the subject himself. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person therefore fails to meet basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is incredibly poorly written, and doesn't really make any claim of notability for the subject under WP:NPOL at all — it just states that he exists as a politician and lawyer, and then proceeds to say more about the political careers of his father, grandfather and uncle than it does about his own. And of the two external links, one is a profile of somebody else entirely and the other just leads to a directory of news articles that aren't about Bakhtiar Mahmud Kasuri at all, so neither of them are notability-assisting references. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Yet this is with us since 2011. --Saqib (talk) 17:35, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Balal[edit]

Ahmad Balal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Consul General is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete diplomatic officials are not default notable, and there is not enough actual coverage of Balal to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please. It's ok, I agree that there is not much coverage/reference material available about the subject. Thanks 39.54.134.233 (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)(Ilyas, Pakistan)[reply]
• Doesn't pass GNG. So, delete.  M A A Z   T A L K  05:49, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sura of Parthia[edit]

Sura of Parthia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

See my and Dandamayev's comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Banu_Khorramdin#Banu_Khorramdin. Basically, looks like a hoax from an account with a vandalizing history. No results before 2011 on the web (found 4, all actually later and copied from wikipedia) or in google books. Anything later copied from wikipedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete i didn't see any reliable source (neither primary nor secondary) for stating that this character even exist. i thinks it's fake and motivation of this action was a kind of feminist or "female epic" for bolding of present of women in persia's history. --Dandamayev (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I believe this is a hoax. I'll note that calling her a Parthian hero, when the Parthians gave way to Sasanian Empire when she was supposedly 11 years old sounds unlikely. There was a battle at Sura between Romans and Parthians some years earlier - [9], [10], [11]. Finally, I would like to extend my apologies, on behalf of the community as a whole, to this woman who changed her name to Sura (possibly (OR) found from the Wikipedia article or a Wikipedia clone?) - it would seem that hoax articles have real world consequences.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:V. A daughter of Artabanus V does play a role in the invasion by Rome as the refusal to to marry her to Caracalla was used as a pretext for war, [12] but I am not finding this name or the description of any daughter as playing a military role in reliable sources. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. Kudos to Galobtter for spotting this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete unless it is provided with RS references. The article purports to link her to two kings, but neither article names her, nor are women notable as participants in this period. The whole thing lacks credibility. I suspect this a hoax perpetrated by Jade Sura, as Icewhiz hints; of course I have no proof and may be wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jade Sura thing, I don't think that is what Icewhiz is saying. Far more likely she just found it on wikipedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article dates back to 2012. If I understand Jade's site correctly she posted there in 2018(which seems confirmed by the wider internet footprint of "jade sura"). Hoax articles would seem to have real world consequences - this is on us.Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the 5th most visited website does have massive consequences. Sometimes they can be bad too :( (though Sura isn't a bad name, I suppose..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Srnec (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blatant Hoax. It's astonishing how so poorly cited an article has spread so quickly: a highly qualified academic has been fooled on the matter. ^[1] Assuming deletion is the decision, it should be moved to the list of hoaxes.FirefoxLSD (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:V and I agree that it seems to be a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:05, 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. Sandstein 07:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance allowance (political)[edit]

Attendance allowance (political) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and inaccurate personal essay. Rathfelder (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ESSAY. Phenom is real, but this page is woefully inadequate - is this term even in COMMON use?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it is a common term in UK politics, and this UK Government-supported report might provide useful material for the article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We cannot keep an article with no sources at all. If someone wants to source it - and verify that it does not merely duplicate an article on the name phenomenon under a different name - please ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article stands it is misleading. But it is a topic deserving of an article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essay about a government benefit that is incorrectly named, has been around since 2006 with around 20 edits total, not even worth a redirect. Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 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. Can be draftified on request by anybody who wants to work on it. Sandstein 07:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cloth tiger[edit]

Cloth tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability; there is no speedy cat for unremarkable cuddly toys. Also WP:NOTHOWTO TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOTHOWTO and no indication of historical importance._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft and give it six months to either be improved up to encyclopedic quality, or be deleted. bd2412 T 16:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment by nom I'll buy the aboveTheLongTone (talk) 11:30, 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. bd2412 T 02:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Shah[edit]

Salim Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article in The Hindu appears to be an interview with the subject, and the other reference is a routine listing of information about him, not a discussion. Does not appear to have won any notable awards. The article on him in Bengali has these same two references, no others. Am not seeing enough here to make him notable. The name itself is common enough that identifying him in a Google search is very difficult. A loose noose (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per description, article does not seem to be notable, and it seems to mostly be based on the IMdB page. DeeM28 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Has appeared in significant roles in multiple notable films and television programmes, and hence satisfies WP:ENT. Ross-c (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A BLP that lacks any Wikipedia notability to pass GNG or WP:NACTOR (WP:ENT). Confusing search results with IMDb (mentionioned above), apparently used as an "External links" reference, that is not a reliable source per WP:RS, WP:Identifying reliable sources, or Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Trying to determine WP:NEXIST did not produce any notability. One of the references shows him in "An Adding Machine", "Prisoner of Second Avenue", "The Proposal" but I can find nothing on these. Even using IMDb there is no biography information and the subject played minor roles in Fanaa (2006) as Defence Secretary, one episode of Byomkesh Bakshi (1993–1997) in 1997, and as Inspector Yadav in Sarfarosh (1999). I would not have looked this deep to try to prove something apparently unprovable but comments by @Ross-c: mentioned "significant roles in multiple notable films and television programmes" but I could not verify this and certainly cannot find biographical sources to change this from an undersourced pseudo biography. Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is undersourced, but that is a case of WP:SOFIXIT. He's covered in the press. E.g. http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/theatre/Talking-heads/article16884220.ece http://www.nettv4u.com/celebrity/hindi/tv-actor/salim-shah His role in, for example, English, August, is not a minor one.I note your argument, but I think you've been selective to make the case for deletion, and I still think he qualifies for a Wikipedia page. Ross-c (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actors don't get a freepass over WP:GNP, there isn't enough coverage about this subject. The only reference that contributes to notability is his interview in The Hindu, certainly a serious newspaper, but not really the best source to establish notability. Furthermore, multiple independent sources to me means at least three. This isn't the case here. wikitigresito (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noora Khalifa Albinkhalil[edit]

Noora Khalifa Albinkhalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Authors of books are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. apparently the subject authored only one book (which is non-notable at least by WP standards) so it fails WP:AUTHOR. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the lady so I would say fails to meet basic GNG as well. For what it's worth, no entry exists on Arabic WP so I assume the author is not even remotely notable.

I don't know why @Nick Moyes: marked it as reviewed. Saqib (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Saqib The answer to that is simple, and you may visit the article creator's talk page to see the message I left for them. I flagged the page as probably not indicating notability and politely invited them to demonstrate this person meets our criteria by improving the page, with a promise to return and nominate the article for deletion if they did not. That page is now on my monitoring list and I would have taken responsibility for returning and taking action if the page creator had not demonstrated notability. I saw no reason in this instance to PROD or AFD a page within a few hours of it being created, as this just demotivates and demoralises potentially good new editors. And we're not here to do that, are we? My NPP tagging and feedback gives them a supportive steer as to what they now need to do; it alerts them to potential deletion if they don't demonstrate notability, and it takes pressure off other NPP reviewers and those at AFD if the subject were indeed shown to be notable. As promised, I shall return again now that you've taken the initiative to AFD, and will give it my !vote for deletion in a few days if they have not enhanced it. (Personally, I would like the NPP reviewers' Page Curation Tool to offer the option of leaving feedback not only to the article creator, but also to insert that text in the Talk Page of the article itself. Then it would have been easier for all with interests in that article to understand what concerns have already been raised and what future action might be taken. I hope this explains why I marked it a reviewed and templated it for notability. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] @Nick Moyes: Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response to my concerns. My bad I did not bothered to look the creators talk page otherwise I would have never wrote that note which I'm going to strike now. Have a good day! --Saqib (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] @Saqib: No worries. This is precisely why I say that we need comments left by New Page Reviewers for article creators to be optionally inserted into article talk pages. Many thanks for striking the question. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can find no sources or reviews on her book in English language press. However, being unable to search Arabic sources, I don't feel this qualifies me to vote delete. We need an Arabic speaking person, independent of nom, to check this. Ross-c (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bazaar Bizarre[edit]

Bazaar Bizarre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Book and event of questionable notability whose website appears to have been hijacked. The event seems to have stopped happening and attracted very little coverage during its life. Mcewan (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Three films is 'multiple'. Ross-c (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article under discussion is not about a film. I don't understand what you mean. Mcewan (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per nominator. Official websites are not considered as reliable sources as per WP:GNG. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree that neither the book or event are notable enough. The three films mentioned above do not have anything to do with the article. --Jaldous1 (talk) 19:27, 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. Although "multiple" has never been defined to my knowledge, in practice "multiple" has been interpreted to mean "at least two". It appears the topic meets this definition. There is no policy that says "more than 3". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan (Pakistani actor)[edit]

Imran Khan (Pakistani actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable at present. Doesn't pass WP:GNG.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep actor name is Imran Abbas as per this Dawn piece and he played lead role in Laaj. As per The Nation story, he acted in Salute (2016 film) as Taliban which I assume some major role. The IMDb entry on actor claims he has acted in few more films but I am unable to locate coverage in RS but I think borderline passes WP:ACTORBIO. --Saqib (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACTORBIO reads multiple notable films.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The subject has acted in at least 3 notable films. (Waar, Salute, and Laaj). 3 = multiple. --Saqib (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would say a few more than 3 would constitute multiple. And in a recent AfD discussion, [13], you said The article cite only 3. So 3 weren't sufficient then, it shouldn't be now. I don't get this moving the goalpost fallacy.  M A A Z   T A L K  04:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Janjua is not an actor.there are different standards applied to different article topics for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's borderline, but multiple means "more than 1" (EDIT: or "more than 2") not "more than 3". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh. I think multiple is more closely defined as several or many. I would put 2 or 3 more like in the few or some category.  M A A Z   T A L K  05:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam Webster defines multiple as "consisting of, including, or involving more than one". The OED, however, defines it as "Having or involving several parts", but if you look up the OED definition of several, it is "More than two but not many". In other words, there are definitions that define it as more than 1 or more than 2, but I haven't found any that say more than 3. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the multiple thing is never specified in Wikipedia guidelines, owing to controversy in opinions.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:41, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Shmatko[edit]

Nikolay Shmatko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:Artist, with no WP:RS and the exhibitions are the exhibitions listed are open call [14] [15]. Vanispam: repeatedly calls himself the king of marble. The Firenze exhibition has potentially up to 1000 exhibitors, as the A's have 37 names (37*26 + "Young Artists" > 1000). Oh wait, the B's have 76, so it is definitely going to be approaching 1000...!! They are listed by letter of the alphabet, for reference (in terms of the notability of the other exhibitors) here are the people whose names begin with "A":

There are 2 of this sample of 37 with established notability. The name Alder links to the article about the tree... Theredproject (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Hmm, if we're looking in terms of WP:ARTIST, nothing suggests he can pass it, but in terms of WP:GNG it's clearly a pass, since I can see quite enough Russian and Ukrainian language sources with articles about him and his art in Ukrainian national press. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG, Vexations, 104.163.158.37 for their independent experienced opinion, as this has been relisted twice. Theredproject (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have discovered that the Florence Biennale is a pay-to-play exhibition, that charges around $3000-4000 for a one week exhibition. Arte Monaco is a pay-to-play 3-day fair with participation prices ranging from 11,000 to 28,000 EURO.[16]. Pinging Arthistorian1977 on this, in case it impacts your !vote above. Theredproject (talk) 15:25, 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. Consensus is that this meets WP:NACTOR, and probably the WP:GNG as well. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Bernath[edit]

Antonia Bernath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN actress with mostly minor roles and no significant coverage. There are plenty of news hits but almost exclusively single mentions aside from one small blurb on BBC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actress with minor roles. Nothing of note here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn’t LinkedIn .Daps166 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2018 (GMT)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She's had the female lead in at least two films (Kisna and Stalled), and in the TV show Trinity. She had a profile in the Sunday Times. A superstar she is not, but this is notable enough for my sensibilities. I propose we mark the article for serious revision (the tone is not encyclopedic), but not deletion. Kenirwin/(talk) 18:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added citations. Bernath passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: enough sources have been added to establish notabililty. PamD 15:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure?

this is a single mention of her name, nothing more.

This is a blog.

This is not coverage, it's the equivalent of imdb listings.

This is a WaPo opinion piece.

None of this amounts to significant in-depth coverage and doesn't verify much of anything in the article aside from the fact that she's had minor roles. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article that you describe as a "single mention of her name" also describes her character as the central character in the TV series: "The storyline will follow character Charlotte Arc, played by St Trinian's Antonia Bernath". So while it is not robust coverage of her, it does demonstrate that she played a significant role. That, together with some theatrical leads does not strike me as merely "minor roles". - Kenirwin/(talk) 18:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Assuming the Sunday Times article really is a profile, and not an interview, that, combined with the other sources, seems to fulfill WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How would an interview article not establish notability. I checked WP:GNG, and it says nothing about interviews not counting. Ross-c (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: An interview would not meet the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I've checked WP:GNG, and that's not what they mean by independent. This is the text: '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.'. An interview is none of those. Ross-c (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Ross-c:'s reading of WP:GNG. The content itself is not entirely independent of the subject because they are interviewing her, but it is being published by a reputable, independent source. And as far as the idea of notability goes, a subject should not be less notable because of the format of the coverage by a major newspaper. (I distinguish this from the verifiability of the content -- I would prefer for my facts not to come directly from the subject or her agent, except where framed as "what she had to say about her experience.") -Kenirwin/(talk) 21:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could've sworn that not counting interviews was part of WP:NBIO, but I must've been thinking of WP:NMUSIC instead, which doesn't count "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" as inferring notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per sources above - meets NACTOR and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources include several world-class newspapers.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 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 keep. Sufficient foreign language sources found. No need to keep this open. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 13:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Sade[edit]

Orly Sade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for academics. Most of the sources in the article are simply links to her publications. The others are from university and other non-independent sites. GScholar does not show a high citation rate (I did not see anything over ~65) She is an associate professor and, barring significant coverage in independent, third party reliable sources, associate professors are not considered notable. None of her other positions seem significant enough to presume notability per WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 15:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw Sufficient foreign language sources found. No need to keep this open. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. She's borderline for the PROF SNG, however she has been covered in depth in the Hebrew economic press on various aspects, e.g. - her children's book, women and money, and her candidacy for a top-tier regulatory position, research into regulation reform, being appointed to the directorate of a large insurance company.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I searched with her native name "אורלי שדה" and added several more citations to the article. I think she now passes WP:GNG due to the amount of discussion about her research, her academic positions, and her book. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Thanks to Lonehexagon for the work on this. Many of the newly added articles, especially those from Calcalist, deal directly with Sade and her work - both academic and governmental - from what I can see from Google translator. MarginalCost (talk) 04:51, 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 kept. bd2412 T 20:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Teo[edit]

Thomas Teo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm putting this article up for a discussion, with my own position being weak delete because of potential lack of verifiable notability, with the only article sources apparently being published by the subject himself, and the whole article seemingly having been written as an aggrandizement by someone closely affiliated with the subject. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not working in psychology myself, I'm not the best positioned to judge, but I suspect that Teo's corner of academia is a comparatively low-cited field, so his GS h-index of 18 might count substantially towards passing WP:PROF#C1. In addition, he edited the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology (and remains a consulting editor). Scopus ranks this journal in the 86th percentile of philosophy journals, citation-wise, so his editorship might count towards passing WP:PROF#C8. If kept, the article would definitely need de-promotionalization, but that's routine for academic biographies, and sources affiliated with the subject are considered acceptable for uncontroversial claims (e.g., where they attended school). XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thomas Teo meets Wikipedia's Notable Scholar criteria WP:PROF#C1, WP:PROF#C4, WP:PROF#C6, and WP:PROF#C8 and I am recommending to keep the article. He is considered an influential researcher in the relatively small field of critical and theoretical psychology, evidenced in his authorship of numerous articles and books on the topic, including ones that cover a wide scope of the history and landscape of the field, such as his book Critique of Psychology: From Kant to postcolonial theory (cited 278 times according to google scholar), his 2015 article in the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Psychological Association American Psychologist called "Critical psychology: A geography of intellectual engagement and resistance", and in his role as the editor of the Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, a 2100 page volume with 477 entries, which according to the publisher Springer's website has been downloaded over 85000 times and in 2016 was rated in the top 25% most downloaded eBooks the relevant SpringerLink eBook collection. In addition to the editorial positions mentioned in the comment above, he is also past-president of the American Psychological Association Division 24 Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Sus85 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Sus85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, purely on reading the remarks from editors above. Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medecision[edit]

Medecision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

articles fails GNG; a BEFORE search finds a plethora of press releases and incidental mentions but nothing passing INDEPENDENT or SIGCOV Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability not established, 2 refs in the article which say little, google and gnews bringing back routine press and company news, created by an spa 3 years ago and little content added since. Szzuk (talk) 21:21, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gettleson[edit]

Mark Gettleson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is a large volume of text in this article regarding a fairly low-level campaign staffer, but none of it adds up to encyclopedic notability. This is basically a glorified resume capped with unremarkable punditry. bd2412 T 12:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The article is held up by many references, very few of which are reliable and none of which talk about the subject in depth for anything he could be notable for. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the references from Twitter, some original research, and additional from unreliable sources. It looks like a big puff piece of original research. I have a headache trying to go through it but will likely return later. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - basically a case of WP:ONEEVENT - he has been in the media thanks to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but is not otherwise notable. NB that it isn't a 'puff piece', quite the opposite - if you read the version by the original author it is clear that that person went out of their way to paint everything Gettleson has done in a negative light. [Disclaimer: Mark Gettleson is known to me through the Liberal Democrats (UK), though I haven't spoken to him for at least five years and probably not for ten...] The Land (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - although I can see why there were opinions to the contrary, once CNMall41 had made a series of curious and arbitrary edits, which emasculated the article of much of its most noteworthy content. Nonetheless, I would like to make the following points:

• The article does indeed meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In support of this, the following items referenced in the article would qualify:

• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/13/vote-leave-campaign-overspent-on-industrial-scale-says-ex-employee-mark-gettleson
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vote-leave-dodged-limits-on-spending-says-insider-zbg57n3ph
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/like-mother-like-son-will-your-parents-influence-how-you-vote-1938511.html
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-in-need-of-cash-801225.html
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11688437/Norman-Lambs-Liberal-Democrat-leadership-campaign-in-dirty-tricks-polling-row.html
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dem-leadership-candidate-norman-lamb-removes-two-campaign-team-members-over-push-polling-claims-10334253.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/21/norman-lamb-lib-dem-leadership-suspected-data-breach
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33215155
• https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/cambridge-analytica-chris-wylie-eunoia-trump-campaign?utm_term=.ixKxeeWyjG#.igQ2kkPg8w

As the above references show, the subject is not just a case of WP:ONEEVENT, not least as there are at least two major notable events which have had the subject at the centre of them, the 2015 push-polling allegations during the Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2015, and the 2018 Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Furthermore, the subject's prominent role in the latter, now flagged up in the top line of the article, is indeed reason enough for the article. As WP:ONEEVENT says, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." ABeLeaver (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rampant WP:COATHOOK situation. By this reasoning, every employee of any company would get their own article if it could be shown that they were employed by that company during two notable events involving that company. We would need to have articles on every programmer at Facebook who played some part in programming their privacy criteria, every lawyer on Microsoft's legal team down to the lowest level associate, and every branch manager at Wells Fargo who pushed the company sales goals. bd2412 T 14:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An oddly misleading response. The subject was not some low-level employee who was coincidentally employed at the time these two stories happened. In the case of the Lib Dem leadership election push-polling allegations, referenced above in multiple reputable sources including the BBC, Times, Guardian and Telegraph, the subject was one of two individuals at the centre of the story (the other, Gavin Grant (executive), already merits their own Wikipedia article). In the case of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal, the only reason the story has emerged at all is that the subject was one of a handful of eyewitnesses to act as "whistleblower", in his case, over the Brexit dimension of the story - another, Christopher Wylie, already merits their own Wikipedia article. The subject is not some incidental employee, as you seem to be suggesting. ABeLeaver (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article variously describes him as "a contractor", "an advisor", a "focus group expert" and "Senior Consultant (Messaging and Branding)" for the company that would later become Cambridge Analytica, but which this person left "early in 2015", which is before that company even did any of its encyclopedically notable work. The next company where he is described as "director of communications" is not even a notable company, and appears to have done nothing more than make unsuccessful bids to work on other projects. Worse than someone working for a company that happened to do notable things, this is a person who happened to work for a company and then left before it did notable things. This is a pastiche of misses papered together to look like a hit. bd2412 T 19:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The amount of content in this article is striking and maybe a bit misleading. There seems to be a lot of dot-connecting that creates tenuous conclusions about the subject's involvement in a wide range of events. Some sources used do not mention Gettleson even once. I'll grant that the articles listed above do come from independent, reliable sources, but that's not quite enough to pass WP:GNG. The way the article's written also makes it seem like Gettleson was the primary actor in the Cambridge Analytica/Vote Leave scandal. Gettleson was a background player at best or at least not the center of the scandal (he doesn't even warrant conclusion in the scandal's own Wikipedia article or in the Cambridge Analytica or Vote Leave pages). I do think this article qualifies as both WP:COATHOOK (because, in many areas, its goal seems to be building a case against the subject, using information from a broader, actually notable topic and occasionally using sources in which the subject isn't even mentioned) and WP:ONEEVENT (because the 2015 Lib Dem scandal—a non-event for which Gettleson was exonerated—was relatively minor and would never be enough to establish notability on its own).Gargleafg (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a rambling mess of an article. I think there's a nugget of why he might be notable in there with the whole Cambridge Analytica thing, but a BEFORE search doesn't show enough reliable sources for me to assume a keep off of that, and as noted above he's such a minor player he doesn't get mentioned in other sources. A keep vote would require massive amounts WP:TNT to narrowly focus why he's notable. Also fails WP:NPOL, for what it's worth. SportingFlyer talk 02:21, 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.