< 28 April 30 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Although some of the "keep" !votes are rather weak, there definitely is no consensus to delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr DisRespect[edit]

Dr DisRespect (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 Twitch.tv streamer and internet personality. But is he notable in the real world? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, he's not notable in "the real world", but he's notable in his field. I consider articles specifically about the subject from ESPN, Rolling Stone, Forbes, Polygon, and PC Gamer to constitute notability. Vermont (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It ain't a big article, but there are definitely sources available that make him pas notability.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft So it can be worked on in greater detail. -- AlexTW 14:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a notable, award-winning gaming personality. AndreyKva (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I agree with you that this isn't anyone that is obviously notable, but taking a look at the references I come to the conclusion that there are enough sources in the article to meet our standards. wikitigresito (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dr DisRespect is definitely notable. He (probably) had the highest Twitch stream viewing ever (although this is disputed by Tyler1 & co.). Many suitable references are already included in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:41, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles-Henri Sabet[edit]

Charles-Henri Sabet (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 Fails WP:BASIC. It appears that this page is being used to promote Charles as an entrepreneur. While he has some sporting achievements and was World Champion of Backgammon in 1979, the article mentions these achievements in passing (and there's a lot of World Champion Backgammon players that don't have articles). As a businessman, Charles appears to be a run-of-the-bill banker and it is difficult to understand the claim to notability. HighKing++ 21:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:40, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargav Gajjar[edit]

Bhargav Gajjar (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 Fails the criteria for notability, fails WP:BASIC. Some articles mention him but nothing in-depth. HighKing++ 21:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:40, 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 procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination. What I see in this discussion was a 3-0 count in favor of "delete", followed by a pile-on of "keep" voters who were canvassed to this discussion by the first keep voter. From what I can see, only "keep" voters were notified. This project is governed by consensus, and WP:CANVASS is a serious aspect of this as it prohibits users from artificially fabricating consensus via biased notification. It appears very obvious to me that that is what happened here, and there is no way I can interpret this as a genuinely-formed consensus. In other words, even if the community would have reached the same consensus without the canvassing, there is no way to judge that, given how severely the participation was apparently skewed by canvassing. There is no assumption of bad faith on the part of any notified participants, and their arguments, as well as past discussions, should be genuinely considered when considering whether to renominate. However, this discussion should not preclude such a renomination, as there is no way for the community to judge whether the apparent overwhelming "keep" consensus would have been reached if the discussion had taken place normally. Swarm ♠ 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of YouTubers (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 (set as a whole is not notable), WP:CLT (no advantages of a list) and WP:LISTPURP (no good for information, or navigation, or development). Duplicate of Category:YouTubers. wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: It was mentioned in a previous deletion debate that being a YouTuber is a profession like a lot of other professions. Why should YouTube be exempt from having a notable YouTuber list? That would be an WP:OSE argument. wumbolo ^^^ 12:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that they have to have an article in Wikipedia already? --RAN (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't I'v changed my vote, all I was concerned about was the criterai for inclusion, and that's been satisfied. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: per WP:REDACT please remember to strike your comments in order to change, rather than refactor them if someone has replied (otherwise it removes the context for that reply). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. We had a discussion last year, which is linked at the top of the talk page and in the edit notice, that determined that only persons who alread have a Wikipedia article should be included, so this argument really doesn’t hold water. If there are any redlinked entries currently they can and shoud be removed without any need fo discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having participated in and/or started several of these discussions over the past ~5 years, it's disappointing to see this assumption when any casual look through the talk page archives or the edit notice would turn it up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The nominator must not fully understand LISTPURP. It's straightfoward. Lists and categories are complimentary of each other at it's very basic. This article does not fail LISTPURP at all. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:Likewise Justin Bieber — IVORK Discuss 05:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chris troutman: SoWhy has you there. Plus it's not about adding your favourite YouTuber. That's not how it works. Instead of complaining the sources you found are not in article, add it. That's the common sense thing to do. Your argument/comments are full of holes that your vote doesn't line up with what you said. Sources you found not being in articles is a terrible reason to vote delete. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SoWhy: I see you've cited some sources below. I'm not denying they exist, but I do think deletion ought to be a method of cleanup, per WP:REALPROBLEM. I'm not being dishonest about it; let an admin discount my rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC) @Fishhead2100: I'm not fixing this article because there's zero utility in it for me. It's illogical to waste one's time cleaning up others' messes unless you enjoy it. I don't. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chris troutman: You're complaining about stuff being wrong with this and that. As long as it is not addressed and fixed, are you're going to keep complaining about it? Don't tell me you are one of those people will only complain and not actually do something about it. That's a bad attitude to have. I don't know if it is bad faith, but not stepping to help address and fix what you perceive as an issue, it does seem like it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fishhead2100: "Don't tell me you are one of those people will only complain and not actually do something about it." Sorry, but yeah. I'm not so arrogant that I'm going to charge forward and impose my will. I recognize Wikipedia suffers from adverse selection due to a broken payoff structure. "...but not stepping to help address and fix what you perceive as an issue..." Per WP:VOLUNTEER. You've been here 13 years and you're going to lecture me that if I don't like Wikipedia it's because I'm not doing enough? Anyone that contributes to Wikipedia for free is a sucker, me included. Jimbo is laughing his way to the bank. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: That's the point of Wikipedia. I edit Wikipedia because I like to. Would you volunteer at a place you don't like? No. You edit here because you like to. Plus we have the power to possibly change things. Not figuring out potential solutions to things that are perceived as an issue is being passive. It doesn't fix itself. That's why taking the initiative is a good thing. WP:IDGAF doesn't work. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You talk about CLT as though you're rebutting it coming up here. When part of the deletion rationale is about that guideline, it's relevant. Perhaps you are rebutting the nominator, though. The subject is so obviously, painfully notable, that it's bizarre to see an experienced editor admit a cursory search, admit it's probably notable, but go with what is either a straight up WP:JDLI or a punitive assumption of bad faith. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites: I think the nomination should have only mentioned NLIST; maybe the nominator was trying to be thorough and accidentally confused the issue. As I explain above, maybe deletion is not allowed to be a form of cleanup but it probably should be. The insufficient article we have is the result of adverse selection. There are incentives to add YouTubers to the list but there's little incentive to demonstrate that the article passes NLIST. Wikipedia:WikiCup can only incentivize improvement if someone could take this to featured list, and I doubt there's material enough to meet that goal. Unless an editor likes talking about YouTubers as a cohort, this mess will never get fixed, which is probably why it keeps getting nominated. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LuckyRacerNP: You only want it deleted because you want stricter guidelines for inclusion on the list. You could easily start another discussion on guidelines. Not every YouTuber has at least ten billion views. They may have a million subscribers, but not the views. Yes, a lot of channels don't necessarily get the views. It's not about deserving. It's about notability and having an article. If you find sources this channel or YouTuber or that channel or YouTuber, great. But as it stands, no article than they can't be added to the list. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyRacerNP: We are adding those Youtubers, who had Wikipedia article page. Wikipedia articles mean the Notable person. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is about YouTube personalities. After reviewing this article, I think all the youtuber are notable. All the reliable sources are enough significant coverage for Wikipedia article. More then 500 reliable sources available. But don't add singers, musician and label etc. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the deletion rationale at all. There's no dispute that at least some of these people are notable, the question is whether a long and perennially incomplete list is the best way of collating them. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of long lists. Some of them are broken up into different pages alphabetically, some by subtopic... If a list on a valid topic grows too long, it doesn't suddenly become deleteworthy. That means it's time to either make the inclusion criteria stricter or spin off part of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the other !votes, the list has criteria of inclusion and addition of entries not in line with those criteria can and should be handled by removing those entries, not the whole list. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: I said a lot more than that in my vote, but let's ignore that and pick what we only want because that's mark of a good debater. *Head shake* Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regards SoWhy 18:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SoWhy: Some people would rather complain than address the issue and fix it. DreamLinker, Lauren Southern didn't start on YouTube. She gained notoriety before launching her own channel. She was a candidate in the 2015 Canadian federal election, she worked for The Rebel Media and had her own show there as well as a reporter. She is a YouTuber now, but she didn't get her start on YouTube nor become notable because of it. That's the point of this list. It's people who became notable because of YouTube. That's how the list works. You don't just add people who have channels as they may have gotten their start elsewhere. Justin Bieber is a mainstream pop singer, but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. I would hazard a guess that you didn't know who Psy was before YouTube. Psy became notable because of YouTube. If you have an issue with Adam Saleh not being on the list, than fix it. Not hard. As SoWhy stated, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fishhead2100: I believe you did not understand my comment. Let's look at some of your rebuttals
  1. Some people would rather complain than address the issue and fix it. - I see. Nice ad hominem with no explanation about why this article should be kept.
  2. That's the point of this list. It's people who became notable because of YouTube. - That point isn't obvious anywhere. Youtuber =/= someone who became notable because of Youtube. Randy Pausch clearly didn't become notable because of Youtube. If the aim of this article is to only show people who became notable because of youtube, it should clearly state it. It doesn't.
  3. Justin Bieber is a mainstream pop singer, but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. - I picked out a bunch of inconsistent examples, not all examples. Yes, Justin Beiber would also be someone who is not exactly an youtuber.
  4. but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. I would hazard a guess that you didn't know who Psy was before YouTube. PSY became notable because of YouTube. - Wrong. I have been listening to Korean Music since the days when SES was popular. PSY was a mainstream singer and was notable in South Korea long before Gangnam style blew up.))
  5. If you have an issue with Adam Saleh not being on the list, than fix it. Not hard. - I am already doing that, but I can guarantee you that if I start adding people, the list will go into thousands. This list is about as useful as a "List of Scientists". Too much information and hard to maintain.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: Chris Crocker is no longer a YouTuber, but he is listed. He became notable because of YouTube. If it wasn't for YouTube, Justin Bieber would have not have gotten signed because he wouldn't have been noticed. He at one time was a YouTuber. I can say for certain that you wouldn't have known who Psy was if it wasn't for YouTube. There are lots of YouTubers, but they are not notable. You wouldn't add them. Therefore, it is obvious that notability is necessary. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fishhead2100 Again, I don't think you even cared to read my comment. Particularly when you say "I can say for certain that you wouldn't have known who Psy was if it wasn't for YouTube.". I already told you that I knew who PSY was years before Gangnam Style blew up. What I am saying is that this list is about as useful as a "List of Scientists" or "List of Journalists". These lists can become infinitely long and ultimately doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Please at least read my comment properly.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes the list is long, but everyone here is notable, and the list is very notable, as all these people have broken records or have beccome significant in culture. Still, you wouldn't delete List of U.S. Presidents or List of Suicides just because it's "long," would you?-K-popguardian (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Frmorrison: When you edit the page, you'll see the page notice that says only add people with an article. Those that don't are removed. Saying blue links only is redundant. Saying Psy doesn't produce videos is irrelevant. Justin Bieber doesn't produce videos anymore. Nothing has been uploaded to his channel in two years. It's not about producing content regularly. If that was the case than this list would be way bigger and longer than it is. This list is people who became notable because of YouTube. That's what it comes down too. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:05, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Jemiola[edit]

Zach Jemiola (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 seem to meet NBASE or GNG. Following release from the Rockies no obvious place to redirect or storehouse the information Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Helbling[edit]

Yannick Helbling (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 and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on an unsourced claim that the Swiss second division is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While there is undoubtedly some degree of professionalism in the Swiss Challenge League, WP:NFOOTY requires footballer to have played in a fully professional league. The WikiProject Football maintains a list of leagues confirmed to be fully pro at WP:FPL. You'll note the Swiss Challenge League isn't on it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: Waitaminute... we're using a user-generated wikiproject page as a definitive source to determine inclusion criteria? What is the distinction between "professional" and "fully professional"? Honestly, it sounds to me like "almost pregnant", which is nonsensical. You either are, or you aren't. Apologies for asking here... this might be a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). ~Anachronist (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: No, we're using reliable sources to determine the inclusion criteria and gathering them in one place for ease of access. Having used this list ten years now, the absence of a league from the list isn't due to lack of interest, but rather because it either ins't fully pro or there aren't good sources on the matter. As for what a fully professional league is, professionalism of leagues is not a binary state, but a sliding scale. The adverb fully is used to distinguish from semi-professional leagues, where some but not all players are unpaid amateurs or part timers who have to hold down other jobs outside of football to earn a living. Leagues like this are regularly described as professional, as is the case with our article on the Swiss Challenge League, but are not covered by WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation. I often run across football-related disagreements about inclusion and I usually move on to something else because (a) I don't follow the sport, and (b) I never fully understood the basis for inclusion. You have helped clear things up. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:38, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 19:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge[edit]

Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (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)

BLP1E - subject of article is only known for, and been covered in regard to, one event: being born last month. Being tenth in line to the throne of Sweden does not pass WP:POLOUTCOMES as inherently notable. In fact, it would take a disaster of unimaginable proportions - one that has not occurred in the 200+ year history of the House of Bernadotte - for a 10er (or even a 5er or 4er) to actually ascend to the throne. (Ultimately, every living human is in the line of succession to the Swedish throne - how far down the list do we go?) No prejudice for future recreation of the article when Adrienne qualifies under the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From BEFORE, it appears 100% of the references in RS are in relation to the subject's birth 29 days ago. Is this not the case of a person notable for WP:ONEEVENT? I can find no sources which report on the subject's activities, appearances, events, or achievements before or after 9 March 2018. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting WP:ONEEVENT. It says "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." So it talks about whether the article should be about the person or the event, or both. In this case, the person outweighs the event (the birth). WP:ONEEVENT doesn't say that a person is not notable just because he/she has only been involved in one event. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as she is not a politician, I would argue that your references to WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL are moot. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, those other people qualify under the GNG as they have been covered in RS for more than WP:ONEEVENT. Adrienne has only received coverage for an event in which she was involved in on March 9. "Perhaps her children will be the ones who don't count as inherently notable, as they will no longer be direct descendants of the crown" - Here you make the argument that direct descent from the Crown of Sweden counts as inherent notability that trumps our policies on GNG/ONEEVENT. I've checked WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES and can't find where direct descent from the Crown of Sweden has been set as a case of inherent notability - for my edification, can you point out where we've established that? Chetsford (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, "every living human is in the line of succession to the Swedish throne" is completely false. The line ends with Adrienne, see Succession to the Swedish throne." In general, and in this case specifically, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If all direct descendants of Carl Gustaf died in a huge accident, Parliament has the authority to expand the line of succession to descendants of Karl XIV. Sweden doesn't just come to an end. Chetsford (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The law (Sucessionsordningen) states that only descendants of Carl XVI Gustaf may inherit the throne. It says nothing about what happens should there be no such descendants. That means that should all 10 of them die, it would give the opportunity for the parliament to give the throne to someone else - anyone - not restricted to descendants of Karl XIV Johan, or to abolish the monarchy. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Parliament would have the authority to expand the line of succession to descendants of Karl XIV. Chetsford (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or to anyone else. It is not limited to descendants of Karl XIV Johan. However, any such change is a constitutional change, which would require two parliamentary decisions, with an election inbetween. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Every human being is in line to the throne only in the same way that every human being is eligible to be president of the US, i.e. only after a (rather unlikely) constitutional change. Sjö (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sounds like we're all agreed! Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question for clarification - do you mean the WP policies are breaking down or there has been coverage about her activities beyond her birth? If the latter, could you provide some examples so I could consider withdrawing the AfD, if appropriate? Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Allofs[edit]

Theo Allofs (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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a photographer, whose notability claim is the winning of unspecified awards and the submission of his work to many unspecified publications. Neither of these is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG, but the only references here are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Enigmamsg 03:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Boschman[edit]

Lorna Boschman (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)

WP:BLP of an artist, whose claims of notability per WP:CREATIVE are referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-assisting ones. The only reference here that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of properly referencing a person as notable is her biographical blurb in the MediaQueer directory -- but that's not enough to pass WP:GNG all by itself as an article's only valid source. A person's eligibility for a Wikipedia article is not determined by what they did, but by how much media coverage they did or didn't receive for doing what they did. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources added. I think it is also fair to argue that has has made a substantial contribution to queer media art and is recognized as having done so by her peers.104.163.159.237 (talk) 03:12, 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 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamel de Pablos[edit]

Tamel de Pablos (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:GNG WP:PROF WP:NAUTHOR Dom from Paris (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 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 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boulton[edit]

Anne Boulton (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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a screenwriter, film producer and sessional university lecturer. The apparent notability claim here is that a film she wrote won an award, but the article fails to specify or reliably source what award is involved. There's only one reference here, and it's to an article in her hometown newspaper -- so that is not enough coverage in and of itself to get her over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 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) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Savage Tales of Frank MacGuffin[edit]

The Savage Tales of Frank MacGuffin (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)

Poorly written and poorly sourced article about a film, whose only claim of notability is that it received one screening at the local film festival in the filmmaker's own hometown. There's no evidence that it's screened anywhere else or gotten any significant volume of media coverage for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG -- the only references here are purely local coverage in the city's own local media. At a top-tier festival like Cannes or Berlin or Sundance or Toronto, a premiere is a presumption of notability in and of itself, because major newspapers and widely-read film industry publications like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter actually send film critics to review the films -- but Cinéfest is not in that rarefied class of festivals, so a locally produced film screening there is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie in the absence of any wider distribution or coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Enigmamsg 03:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scorn (video game)[edit]

Scorn (video game) (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 coverage is not enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 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 Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) ‐‐1997kB (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drvivekbindal[edit]

Drvivekbindal (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 issue. None of the sources are in-depth and reliable. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:17, 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. Ignoring the socks, which didn't have convincing arguments anyway. Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Fry (actor)[edit]

Pat Fry (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)

WP:BLP, referenced only to IMDb and his own self-published website about himself with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all, of an actor whose only apparent claim of notability is that he exists. Actors do not, however, get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed in the article -- if you're shooting for "notable because he's had roles", rather than "notable because he was nominated for an Oscar, Emmy or Canadian Screen Award for one or more of his performances", then the notability clinch is not in the list of roles but in the depth of reliable source referencing that can be shown to get him over WP:GNG for the having of roles. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a role, no matter how "significant" you assert it to be, does not automatically exempt an actor from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG, and people do not get exempted from having to clear GNG just because they've been confused in the past with other people of the same name either. It is not our responsibility to keep it just because other people might help fix it in the future, because they also might not — if you want the article to be kept, then you're the one whose responsibility it is to demonstrate that enough real notability-supporting media coverage about him exists to make it keepable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With that said though, if this page does end up being deleted, would you try to help me clear up the confusion about Pat Fry the actor versus Pat Fry the racing engineer? KSportMGNT (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Overthemoonandback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Nobody said that the actor's work is "nonexistent" — that's a strawman you invented in your own head, not a thing anybody in this discussion said or implied at all. But appearing in multiple films and TV shows is not the inclusion test for an actor in and of itself — the inclusion test is not "has been in stuff", but "has received enough reliable source coverage about him in media, independent of his own self-published web presence, to clear WP:GNG for being in stuff". An actor can be in millions of stuffs, and still not get an article if media haven't written about his performances in stuff. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Well that's what you made it sound like when you said that this actor's, "only apparent claim of notability is that he exists." You're the one who made it sound like there was no evidence of his work whatsoever, so don't tell me that that is a strawman that I created because you were the one who made that statement when you nominated this article for deletion. Overthemoonandback (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overthemoonandback: since "has had roles" is not an automatic inclusion freebie for an actor in and of itself, "he exists" is an entirely accurate summary of what the notability claim here actually is. An actor's notability claim does not jump from "notable because he and his work exist" to "has a strong claim of notability for specific reasons" until one of two things happens: (a) he gets nominated for or wins a major (Oscar/Emmy/CSA) award for his acting, or (b) the media start writing content about his acting. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— TVmovieHunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The only new sources that have been added at all are Rotten Tomatoes and TV.com, which are still IMDb-type directories that still do not constitute evidence of notability. Notability for an actor is newspapers and magazines and books writing editorial content about him, not WP:ROUTINE verification of his roles in directory lists. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat To this person's defense, though, take a look at this actress who also appears on Caillou and tell me if this belongs on Wikipedia since she hasn't had any media coverage on her since the early 1990's. Plus, rotten tomatoes is used on many other movie, TV show, and actor/actress pages on Wikipedia, so I'm having a hard time understanding how it is not a reliable source. KSportMGNT (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a time limit on how recent a person's media coverage has to be — the rule is that media coverage has to exist, not that the datestamp on any of it has to be within the past few years. (Frex, George Washington isn't exactly getting into the papers a whole lot these days, what with having been dead for 200 years and all, but he's still notable.) And you're misunderstanding what's being said about IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes: as long as stronger notability-assisting sources are present to cover off the basic question of notability, you can use IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes as supplementary sources to ensure that the list of roles in his article is complete —even the most famous actors in the world have had some roles (e.g. supporting or minor parts before they got famous) that are hard to source elsewhere, so it's perfectly valid to use IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes to help fill in the gaps. The thing you can't do is say that having IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes profiles makes the actor notable in and of itself, if those are the only sources on offer and there's no GNG-eligible media coverage being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:09, 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) 00:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Muktibahini ParaCommando landing at Tangail[edit]

Bangladesh Muktibahini ParaCommando landing at Tangail (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)

Unverified WP:CFORK of Tangail Airdrop. The article has no standing of it's own, no references and seems to be based on the article mentioned above. I was able to find one self published reference([5]). At best in can be merged into Tangail Airdrop if a WP:RS was found to back this up. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Ulrich[edit]

Armin Ulrich (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 WP:RS to establish notability. Only a "Unit Manager and First Assistant Director." Golden Camera was unverifiable. Theredproject (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:10, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Romano Vercelli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Giulio Romano Vercelli (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)

Very very very close paraphrase of [6] which is the only source extant, and is not independent or RS. I Speedy'd all three for COPYVIO, but only Gemma Vercelli was accepted as such. So putting both Giulio Romano Vercelli and Renato Vercelli up for AfD. The museum collections are unverifiable, and seem likely to be inflated, as I can't find anything legit about them online or in databases. BTW not this painter by a similar name [7] Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:12, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puss (Swedish music duo)[edit]

Puss (Swedish music duo) (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)

googling a bit does not reveal any obvious notability. The article also has no WP:RS reliable sources required to WP:V verify neither its WP:GNG general notability nor WP:BAND. This music duo may therefore be a subject unsuitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC) AadaamS (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard3120 It's not about whether I consider them notable, WP guidelines are the yardstick. How are the critieria of WP:BAND satisfied? AadaamS (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AadaamS: apologies, the "you" wasn't directed at you personally, it was meant for any editor reading this AfD in general... perhaps I should have said "it depends if one considers a simple nomination enough", but it just sounds too formal.
Anyway, in answer to your question, they meet criterion 8 of WP:BAND - they have been nominated for a major music award. But personally I would like to find some more verifiable information to establish notability than just this. Richard3120 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may be guilty of overreacted there to the you, it's a misinterpretation on my part since English is not my mother tongue. I may even have a preference for one which translates straight from my mother tongue in meaning and usage. AadaamS (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that WP:BAND states that a mere nomination appears to endow notability. Also the WP:GNG must be satisfied ... which means about 3 articles or sections in a book which describes the group. Being mentioned in a list of nominees amounts to WP:TRIVIALMENTION. AadaamS (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to satisfy WP:GNG, source coverage must go beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTION. A WP:RS source is an article or section in a book which describes the group itself, not briefly mentions the name as part of a list of nominees. AadaamS (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 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) 00:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Penguins of Doom[edit]

The Penguins of Doom (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)

Can't find any evidence of notability. Found only Goodreads, e-commerce listings, and tons of unrelated results like The Penguins of Madagascar episodes. Does not even attempt to prove notability, consisting only of plot summary and literary analysis. All sources, none of which are inline, are primary. I haven't checked the publisher or the author, but Blooming Tree Press does not have an article and Greg R. Fishbone is also tagged for notability, listing exactly one other book on his article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, it looks to me like his other book and his bio page would also fail WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 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 no consensus. Notability seems borderline at best. Both "keep" and "delete" !votes have good, policy-based arguments. However, I cannot discern any consensus here either way. No prejudice against re-nominating if she doesn't get elected. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Pike[edit]

Jo Pike (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)

This article fails on grounds of notability. It fails WP:PERSON: the notability requirements for a politician state that simply running for office is not enough to warrant an article. It also fails WP:ACADEMIC: Dr Pike is not editor of a prestigious academic journal, has not held the highest elected position at a university, has not received a prestigious academic award and has not made a significant impact in the area of higher education. Delete on grounds of a lack of notability. FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full text for WP:PERSON reads: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Both Keighley News and the Telegraph and Argus covered Pike's selection by the Labour Party and Philip Davies MP (who she will run against) is a controversial figure who has attracted a great deal of coverage for his views. At the 2017 UK general election, Davies won with 51.3% of the vote (27,417 votes) while Labour were second with 42.6% of the vote (22,736 votes). So who Labour chooses to run against a contentious figure for next time (and there could be an early general election) is notable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, so a candidate for political office does not get an inclusion freebie just because the incumbent she's running against happens to be a "controversial" figure. And every person who gets selected as a candidate for any party in any election is always going to be able to show a few pieces of evidence of local coverage of that fact itself, so that coverage cannot be used to get a candidate over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL either — because if that were all it took, then every candidate everywhere would always get to claim that detour around having to pass NPOL. To make a candidate notable enough for an article on the grounds of being a candidate per se, what needs to be shown is not "some local campaign coverage exists", but "she got so much more campaign coverage than everybody else in the election also got that she can credibly claim to be a special case". And the only other path that exists at all is "was already notable for other reasons besides her candidacy". Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She's not inheriting anything. Labour is the UK's opposition party and the nearest rival to Davies at Shipley. Pike is Labour's candidate not a minority party's candidate or an independent. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant whether the party is a major or a minor one. Regardless of what party a person is a candidate for, being a candidate is not a notability claim in and of itself — a person has to win the election and hold the office to be notable as a politician, not just be a candidate, and is not handed a notability freebie just because the incumbent MP she happens to be running against is "controversial". Either she defeats him on election day and becomes the new MP, or she's not notable as a politician at all and qualifies for an article only if you can demonstrate that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frederika Eilers I don't know how many AfD's you have commented on before but comments are usually preceeded by Delete or Keep or Comment. Delete or Keep is then followed by your reasoning. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pro-tip! My reasons are the same as previously discussed, WP:N, namely.Fred (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added Cairn's review. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't meet those criteria - a review must be "in addition to" the book being notable, something that it isn't.FirefoxLSD (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for discussion of the source found by Joe Decker
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to Joe Decker's discovery of the book, I'm fairly certain that the book does not meet the requirements of criteria 3. Criteria 3 specifies that it must be "significant or well known" in order to meet this requirement. This book isn't well known or significant. I realise that as an academic text, exposure to a reading public will naturally be much smaller, but a quick search of Google Scholar, Google books and JStor fails to reveal many if any citings of the book - it clearly isn't that significant even in the academic world. The fact that the book has a full length review does not cancel out my point: the guidelines specify that this must be "in addition" to the book being significant of its own accord. Just having academic reviews does not make a book significant, as nearly every book has a review in some journal.FirefoxLSD (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you have it wrong. If the book has two academic reviews that book is notable under our guidelines, which is a higher bar than "significant". So AUTHOR 3 would apply. Generally, in my long experience closing AfDs, two signficant academic reviews would be considered sufficient. Still, if nothing else, the notability of the book (and its eligibility for an article) has been demonstrated, assuming those two reviews are independent, long form, and reputable. --joe deckertalk 22:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, where are you seeing that. I do a lot of these, and 3 reviews of a single book is the consensus bare minimum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that I haven't looked at the second review, and y'all can hash out the specifics as to that. --joe deckertalk 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second book review added by Zofia Boni in the journal Children's Geographies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/24/momentum-labour-selection-defeats-seats-control-party http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16081738.Plans_to_take_free_school_meals_from_children_not_true__says_Shipley_MP/ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/keighleynews/16118925.Anti_incinerator_campaigners_confirm_plans_for_new_appeal_against_proposals/ http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/16116543.Keighley_s_anti_waste_to_energy_plant_campaigners_confirm_plans_for_new_appeal_against_the_proposals/ Her 'Foucault, space and primary school dining rooms' also has quite a few citations. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In looking through WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, the discussion of literature is "published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. The question, in my mind, then, is if the reviews found by Joe Decker and the Village Feminist are significant academic reviews. If so, then the subject meets WP:Author. --Enos733 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The journal articles are published in Food, Culture & Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (here) and Children's Geographies (here), both by Routledge. I've changed the infobox from scholar to writer with The Moral Geographies of Children, Young People and Food: Beyond Jamie's School Dinners as her most notable work. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is discussing literature. Academic books/articles, which are what Jo Pike has written, are not covered under the literature guidelines, as they aren't literature. Wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of academics stress that simply having reviews is not enough, since almost every academic article will have them. The guidelines suggest the academic must be the author of "highly cited academic work", something none of Pike's articles are. None of the other guidelines for "significant impact" are relevant to her.TeddyBiffles (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACADEMIC states: Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. The reviews named are not for an article, they are for her book. Pike is providing evidence to the All-Nation Children's Future Food Inquiry Parliamentary Inquiry and has been named as Labour's candidate for Shipley. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:31, 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 merge to Phono-semantic matching. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expressive loan[edit]

Expressive loan (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)

Per WP:DEL6 and 7: Term either does not exist, is a mistranslation from some valid linguistics expression in another language, or is a hoax. Note the lack of results from ((Find sources)). Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, it looks like Phono-semantic matching is related to the point that having two different articles is excessive. Also, I've seen terms like "expressive or onomatopoetic origin" (e.g. [9]) or similar used for this phenomenon, which makes finding sources difficult. --vuo (talk) 22:11, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chervang Kong Vang[edit]

Chervang Kong Vang (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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The main claim of notability appears to be inventing the Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong script; that is also a newly created page of questionable notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anil K Reji[edit]

Anil K Reji (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)

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. PROD contested by SPA who appears to have a close connection with the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: That 5 hours old TOI article came two days after I proposed this article for deletion and that clearly show how paid media works in India (this worth reading Paid news in India) and there are no evidence that the subject played a major role in films listed in the article and the first one Idukki Gold is not even verifiable. Am open to withdraw my nomination if you can provide just one more source that talk about the subject directly and in details. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS: In response to your comment, I've read several sources on paid media in India, and like many countries there does appear to be a problem. However, I don't think we can reject that source unless, for example, there is a larger pattern of seeming abuse in relation to Wikipedia articles, leading to a rejection of The Times of India as a reliable source. I don't believe it's up to us when discussing an individual nomination to reject sources based on suppositions. I'm prepared to look at this again if there is more evidence or if decisions are made about the sources themselves. Ross-c (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious why there is no corresponding entry on local language WP, if coverage exists in Malayam language sources. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: because a Google news search for "അനിൽ കെ റെജി" returns with a grand total of one hit and that is not even reliable. I don't understand on what basis TOI claimed Remember the Malayali boy, Anil K Reji, who made news after acting in a soft drink ad with Virat Kohli and MS Dhoni? made news? when? where? I looked everywhere can't even find a single source that talk about it. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This TOI piece can be used inside the article to support claims, but cannot be used to establish WP:N because it is promotional. --Saqib (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS: Just because the news came 2 days after your nomination of deletion doesn't mean that it was paid. The lady who wrote the article was the same person who had put up a small write up of Anil in Deccan Chronicle 3 years ago just after the pepsi advertisement. Apparently she wanted to do one more article when she moved to TOI based on the recent works he did. Thus the article in Times of India. And in all the movies he worked for the character length was more than half of the movie and that too important ones. His facebook profile has also been verified. Just putting it out there. An actor who acted along with him in Idukki gold has a wikipedia page which has been verified. So Kindly requesting you to consider withdrawing the nomination. Thank you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imakr.official (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Imakr.official (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
@Imakr.official: Seriously? can you provide that "Deccan Chronicle" source? FYI verified social media page/profiles has nothing to do with notability and none of the source claimed he played a major role in films listed in the article so for me this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON for playing minor roles in some major films. Finaly do you mind disclosing your connection with the subject per the COI guideline? Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 06:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS: Hello GSS, My name is Ijaaz, Anil's friend/page manager for his Facebook page. Currently logged in to his profile iamkr.official. I am the one who started writing his wiki page along with another user named Hisham. We both mage his Facebook page. Yes, I can Understand that verified social media profiles has nothing to do with this, but I was just putting it out there. He has done an international advertisement and many national advertisements with well known names and production companies. He wasn't a big fan of self promotion, exactly why there weren't many articles on him back then. The movies he did had him playing lead roles. The movie Puthiya Niyamam had him playing the negative character opposite Mammootty. the latest one named KALY had him playing the role of one of the heroes with Shebin Benson. In Idukki Gold, he played the childhood role of a lead character, just like Shebin Benson. The Deccan Chronicle article was 3 years ago and was a newspaper article. I cannot manage to find the article on the internet from the archives. I still have an image of the newspaper clipping from when the e-paper link was still up back then. I started writing this page for him since this could give him a lot of notability in the industry. I understand all the points you've put across GSS. I would still like you to Kindly consider letting this page live based on what I have just written. Thank you.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Forsyth County, Georgia. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Springs, Georgia[edit]

Sharon Springs, Georgia (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)

This was a proposed city in Georgia. Comprising of a region ~50,000 people, it would certainly be notable. However, the proposal was withdrawn, and on April 06, 2018, it was announced the proposal would move no farther. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Baba[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pilot Baba (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 GNG and basic English. Also deleted once before, unanimously. Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 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) 00:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil C. Lowe[edit]

Cecil C. Lowe (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:JUDGE Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:13, 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) 00:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yulem[edit]

Yulem (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)

Seems made up. Insubstantial sourcing. Bus stop (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:WITHDRAW. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A.A. Taste Awards[edit]

A.A. Taste Awards (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)

Non notable award ceremony. Almost All sources are affiliated (winners venues judges) Dom from Paris (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on WP that I could see but as notability is not inherited I don't see if it is really important. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you like I can withdraw the nomination draftify it and let you go through the WP:AFC process if you think that with time you can find enough sources to show notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dom from Paris for helping withdraw the speedy nomination. Sure this will be ideal for me to find enough sources and even may can finishing the summarizing the Chinese one to show notability. You're always welcome to give some advise or re-write the too promotional paragraph. Minyuhuang (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2018(GMT+8)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anusha Gunasekera[edit]

Anusha Gunasekera (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. The subject has served as Municipal Councillor and never elected to a state or national level legislature thus fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very notable article about a famous politician in sri lanka who has held office in the local government which meets the notability guidelines for WP:POLITICIAN and being a member of the municipal council is one of the greatest posts in the government of SRI LANKA. 2nd Innings (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets the guidelines as it has sources and it is notable. an important article to sri lankans BOLLYWOOD IS MY LIFE (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this has a great notability since he is related to provincial government administration and he is special as he is the first member of the new municipal council and this notable article has many reliable sources 175.157.139.148 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the shenanigans of this IP user. --Saqib (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:26, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reynold Macpherson[edit]

Reynold Macpherson (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)

Unsuccessful politician that fails WP:NPOL. The coverage is routine local news political reporting. Fails GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A failed candidacy for mayor is not a notability claim in and of itself — every single person who was ever a candidate in any election anywhere has always been "featured" in media to some extent in that context, so that coverage does not count as support for notability unless it explodes way outside the bounds of what's merely expected to exist for all candidates. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion, either — we have no way to prevent anybody from trying to create an article about absolutely anything or anyone that exists at all, so the existence of any article is not in and of itself grounds for the creation of an article about any other apparently similar topic. Raising an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument actually backfires, as a rule — it's more likely to cause the other article to get put up for deletion, if it's not properly demonstrating an includable notability claim either, than it is to cause the salvation of this one. Wanna take a wild guess what just happened to John Palino's article? Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Caldwell Harris[edit]

Roland Caldwell Harris (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)

Poorly referenced biography of a municipal bureaucrat. While he might qualify to have a Wikipedia article if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG for this, the only properly footnoted references here are to a Blogspot blog, not a reliable source. And while there's one additional reference contextlessly listed under a separate "sources" header after the references header, it names the newspaper and the date but fails to provide the title of the content being referenced, so I had to run a ProQuest search to determine that it's just his WP:ROUTINE obituary, which means that it doesn't singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-blogspot source on offer. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this, but the fact of having a piece of municipal infrastructure named after him is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beaches Living is not a reliable source at all — it's a neighbourhood web business directory, not a real media outlet, so that link counts for all of exactly nothing. The Spacing link does not list any articles that are substantively about R. C. Harris at all — it just lists a few short blurbs about the plant, not anything about Harris as a person that would help him get over WP:GNG. So the only one of those links that counts for anything at all is The Globe and Mail — but that's one piece of coverage toward an inclusion criterion that requires a hell of a lot more than just one piece of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, a badly sourced article is not better than nothing — our basic credibility as a source of information depends on sourcing our articles properly so that people can't just make up random unsourced bullshit about him. Deletion of this would not prevent somebody from trying again in the future if they can actually locate better sourcing than we've been able to find so far, so we don't keep badly sourced articles just because they're "better than nothing". If somebody can do better than this in the future, they're absolutely more than welcome to do that — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to require us to keep it in this state of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Boomker[edit]

Amelia Boomker (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:BLP1E WP is not the Guinness book of records. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make this person notable. Before having beaten the record she was unknown and when someone else beats her record it is unlikely that she will be known for anything else. The articles all treat her beating the record this is a classic BLP1E article. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, see category:world record holders. What about the person who is the current tallest in the world? He was preceded by someone else (who also has an article). This man might be succeeded by someone just as Amelia was preceded and might be succeeded in the future. What about that person who has an article just because he is completely covered in tattoo? There are many more like that. Amelia atleast has an impact on the community. She helped many kids who needed breast milk. Anyways, let the community decide. I respect your judgement as an individual. Dial911 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are discussions from 10 years ago. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Do you have anything more recent? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is indeed a work in progress. And so is Guiness World Record. There is so much of competition that only utmost calibre gets to come in the Book of records. Moreover, the rationale in this case remains the same. And having a guiness world record is obviously notable. Amelia donated 4000 bottles of milk in a duration of time same as that lady grew her hair in a continuous manner. I just don’t see a point as to why a World Record Holder is not eligible for an encyclopedic entry. Dial911 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion as to what constitutes a BLP1E may have changed. Here is a more recent one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Pandey. But as per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I think it better to allow other editors to !vote. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s funny how Afds become a battle of ‘I am right and you are wrong’. And this keeps encyclopedia from getting rich in reliable content. It indeed is better to allow others to voice their opinion. Dial911 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This policy has “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.“ Again, setting up a WORLD RECORD is a highly significant event and her role is obviously large one. If this is being discussed here then Why do we even have category:world record holders then? Dial911 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness world records holds a data base of over 40,000 different records some of which are far from being significant such as the largest.number of facial masks applied simultaneously. If we follow your logic then every single record would have a WP page if there were a couple of articles in RS. There are notable people that are record holders hence the category but not every record holder is notable. Even if BLP1E may not apply (even if I think it.does) what is lacking here is WP:SUSTAINED notability. All the sources date from 1 week in March 2014. To show that this is not just a news article reporting the fact that she broke the record are there any more recent sources that talk about her? Dom from Paris (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if there are RS on world record holders then WP should have them all. That is what WP is, an open-source referenced encyclopedia of reliable information. I am sure there will not be significant coverage of all 40,000+ world record holders in reliable secondary source so sadly, even if you follow my logic, not all world record holders will have entry on WP. Dial911 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tall people get noticed. Lesser record setters, such as Amelia and flagpole sitters don't. H. David Werder was up there for over 439 days, but nobody at Wikipedia saluted. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly and Boomker only held the record for a few months and in actual fact had probably never really been the record holder as the other woman had donated much more than her over a similar period. Have you found any more recent sources?Dom from Paris (talk) 06:22, 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. No arguments were made to delete the article outside of the nominator's. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Smith (author)[edit]

Don Smith (author) (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)

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable sourcing to carry an article. The notability claim as a writer is that he and his work exist, which is enough if the person can be sourced over WP:GNG for it but not enough in and of itself to exempt him from having to pass GNG — but five of the seven references are to unreliable sources, like Blogspot blogs or the sales pages of his own books on the website of their own publisher, which cannot support notability. And of the two citations that are actually to published books by other writers, one book just contains a glancing namecheck of Smith's existence on one page without being in any way about him — and although I admit that I'm unable to verify whether or not the other says enough about him to start getting him over GNG or not (it has a page on Google Books but its text is not searchable), even if it does it still takes quite a bit more than just one GNG-worthy source to finish getting him over GNG. Which means he simply isn't sourced anywhere well enough to pass GNG in lieu of not having a strong AUTHOR pass. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are inherently unreliable sources that cannot be used to reference Wikipedia content at all. They are not reliable or trustworthy support for claims of fact, and they are not evidence of notability. And a person does not get a free exemption from having to clear WP:GNG just because he's an obscure topic with a common name who might get "lost" in the crowd — he has to have a credible claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, and he has to have more reliable source coverage to support it than you've shown here, before he gets to have a Wikipedia article. We do not create special carveouts from our notability and sourceability standards just to help publicize the work of a person who doesn't pass them — we're not a free publicity venue, and it's not our role to help undercovered or unsung topics create a media presence. We do not keep an article about a person who has neither a strong notability claim nor strong sourcing just because it's theoretically possible that somebody might come along in the future with better sourcing to support it, because it's also possible that somebody might not — if you want the article to be kept, then it's your job to find enough reliable source coverage to make it keepable before you create it at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing stops anybody from creating an article about anything, so whether a person has an article on another language Wikipedia is irrelevant to notability or lack thereof — the other articles may also need to be deleted, and just hadn't gotten noticed until they were brought up. That kind of argument actually tends to backfire more often than it succeeds — it's more likely to cause the deletion of the other language articles, if they aren't solidly sourced either, than it is to make the English article survive. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much for the reviews! Sadly I don't have access to the ones in The New York Post; I only know they exist because they are blurbed on the paperbacks. Chances are the review(s) was on the whole series, not on one book. Also, author is dead according to a living relative, but I haven't been able to find a quotable source on that. He is said to have lived in Europe while he wrote.SonnyHEL (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have added several book reviews from major newspapers, a tedious process due to author's very common name and the fact he uses titles filled with common names and phrases like "Out of the Sea" that generate hits on a large number of stories about other stuff. Nevertheless, there is more than enough to establish that this was a very popular author. Not also that Smith's thrillers have been written about (albeit briefly) in at least two three (just added another) recent books (sourced on page).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 7 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. MER-C 10:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum 9[edit]

Quantum 9 (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)

Article about a non-notable consultant firm that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Added to Wikipedia on the same day as Michael Mayes (entrepreneur), the founder of the firm. Both would appear to be created by undeclared paid editors. (As a side thought, the company is more likely to receive coverage in the press than a similar-sized consultant on building materials, because cannabis is an altogether more newsworthy topic.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on the Stevie Awards, entrants pay a fee of up to $505 and 30 to 40% of them receive awards. The company seems to have been given a bronze Management Award in 2017 in the category "Executive of the Year - Business & Professional Services - Less Than 100 Employees". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about the "Best Management Consulting Firm" recognition?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a "Best International Marijuana Consulting Firm" award from an online magazine of unknown reliability is enough to show notability. I'm inclined to vote to delete this article, but maybe I'm wrong about that award or someone can show the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sani Aliyu[edit]

Sani Aliyu (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)

DG of a non-notable organisation National Agency for the Control of AIDS is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia until xe meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Toth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robert Toth (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)

Apparently non-notable, does not meet WP:ARTIST. I've not been able to access the two sources in the page, but I believe that they are cartoons by the subject. I've found some promotional material for this person, but no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Note: the page appears to have been created by someone close to the subject; I've removed some unsourced personal detail per WP:BLP, and am somewhat curious to know where that came from – it's not on his website, for example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Although this has come up as "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Toth (3rd nomination)", it is the first deletion discussion for this person; the previous two nominations related to a quite different Robert Toth, a commercial artist in the United States. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 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) 00:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Solutions[edit]

Lambda Solutions (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:NORG Seraphim System (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 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. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Shankar[edit]

Aruna Shankar (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)

Mayor of a city with less than a half million population is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless the subject meets GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 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 no consensus. The question is not whether the article has enough sources to satisfy GNG, it appears instead that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the sources given. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aldona Kmiec[edit]

Aldona Kmiec (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 to meet the requirements of WP:NARTIST. SmartSE (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: the subject of an article can be local and still pass GNG as long as they are covered in several RS. Also, she doesn't need to pass CREATIVE. You may want to re-evaluate. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: I had evaluated those sources already, and I'm not compelled to change my position. I could have explained my rationale better though. To me, for an artist's biography, critical attention is key to notability. Who pays attention matters. Is it the critic for a major paper, or a scholar, or a writer of clickbait? Even in the same publication that distiction matters. It's why we don't evaluate reliability of sources categorically, but always in context. We need subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:ARTIST because sometimes critical attention exists but is given in other ways than articles in the media or peer-reviewed journals. Exhibitions and inclusion in collections of notable institutions are indicative of such attention because the curators (trained experts, reliable sources) at such institutions evaluate the significance of an artist's work before exhibiting or acquiring a work. The amount of work that goes into buying a painting at a large museum for example is enormous. I've seen dossiers that are several hundred pages thick. Even a modest retrospective can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to organize. A catalogue raisonné can take years to compile. So those indicators (exhibits, collections, monographs) are really significant and ought to weigh much more than newspaper coverage. The two sources that you suggest are good articles about her are local and attention solely from local media is not an indication of notability IMO. The rewritten notability guideline for businesses and organizations WP:NCORP has got this right, I think. Local media often report on events that have no significance beyond the region, and a residency at the Ballarat branch of UnitingCare Australia is such an event. The bio provided in the abc article is not written as a critical analysis of the work of an artist, but merely re-states what the artist herself has written at https://visura.co/user/kmiec/bio for example. As for the Courier, that piece is about a series of six works that were among 47 nominations for the Maggie Diaz Photography Prize for Women (a A$5,000 photo prize). Not sure why the award is not mentioned in the article about Maggie Diaz BTW, since it might be a notable award (but an artist would still have to win it to be notable on the basis of an award). Other than that, and the mention that she is one of more than 25 local photographers participating in the Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program (Note: fringe, not the core program), that article doesn't actually say much about her. In conclusion, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Does not meet the GNG or any SNG. Vexations (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: Sorry for the slow reply! I think [11], [12] are good articles about her with the other articles adding enough to support GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From one of the sources: "Kmiec is one of more than 25 local photographers participating in the Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program... The Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program provides photographers of all levels of experience the chance to have their work showcased with some of the best photographers in the world." In other words, she is a local amateur photographer. 104.163.159.237 (talk) 11:46, 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 merge to WKAR-TV. J04n(talk page) 19:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Telecasters[edit]

MSU Telecasters (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)

College cable public access station. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The article claims that it was founded in 1954. That claim is likely false since it would predate all other cable tv stations by more than a decade. Article was created by an WP:SPA account that disappeared ten years ago and then came back out of nowhere to deprod the article yesterday. Rusf10 (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What awards? Which notable alumni? Also see WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Van den Bossche[edit]

Peter Van den Bossche (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)

apparent puff piece with hall mark external links to various sites with which the subject is associated. Sources largely primary or from commercial sites. Edaham (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Edaham (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Created by a user with an apparent COI, this piece makes use of in-body external links, is sourced only from the sites with which the subject is affiliated etc. Additionally I've draftified the page World_Trade_Institute, which had been (unbelievably) passed - untagged by a NPP, despite being woefully sourced only from the WTI website and being a similarly COIed puff piece - an oversight I hope. Suggest that those involved be strongly discouraged from creating pages about or affiliated with this institution and its employees. Edaham (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 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. Promised sources not delivered. Should sources become available, this can be re-created. Or restored to user space to allow for improvement until ready. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Her[edit]

About Her (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)

Online magazines and websites are not given an automatic free pass over WP:N just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:MEDIA or Wikipedia:Notability (web), respectively. This one fails both IMO.

The only coverage about this web cum online mag I can see in independent RS in here but it is actually an announcement of the mag launching. The rest of the coverage about this mag I found is some paid press releases in some dubious+unreliable sources, both in English and Arabic language sources. For example, this, this, this and this are obviously paid press releases in English language unrelaible sources. Similarly, this, this and this is coverage in Arabic language magazine Sayidaty which is not indepdent of the subject because the Sayidaty is owner of this online magazine as well so there is obvioiusly COI. Other than this, Search doesn't produce any substantial and non-trivial coverage about this mag in independent RS which means this web+mag fails to meet basic GNG as well. Therefore I Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am just curious if you're in anyway connected with this magazine? If there is any COI, please declare it. Because as far I can see you've so far participated in only one other AfD which is related to this magazine. Now back to topic, none of the coverage you provided above able to establish WP:N. Some of them are RS but they merely namecheck (mention in passing) the website, while some of them are not RS at all. I can't see any mention about this magazine cum website in these sources ([13] [14], [15]). The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Apologies, I may have pasted the wrong links. I will try and update them later today. Also, I am in no way affiliated with the website or its editors. The only reason I have participated in these two related accounts is because it is related to my first wikipedia page about the editor. And because I had edited this page as well to link to that page. That is all. I intended to create another page for the model who also carries a similar name to the editor but this is proving time-consuming with all the research required, so I may need to postpone that for now. Thanks.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)[edit]

St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington) (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)

Article does not demonstrate notability. This is part of a group of articles created by a SPA on hospitals owned by CHI Franciscan Health. DocumentError (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 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) 00:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pentecostal Sub-Arctic Leadership Training College[edit]

Pentecostal Sub-Arctic Leadership Training College (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)

non-notable college, little/no published info available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bistropha (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 Apr 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 14:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 14:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 14:45, 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. Sources have not been provided to demonstrate that WP:GNG has been met. No other arguments have been set forth explaining why this topic is otherwise notable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Société de transport de l'Outaouais Interzone Routes[edit]

Société de transport de l'Outaouais Interzone Routes (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 with just four routes. Reads like a travel guide Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. Bus routes are generally non notable and this article provides no evidence of any. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 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. J04n(talk page) 19:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitab Mela[edit]

Kitab Mela (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)

This is a promotional article some relatively small online book store+publisher which also organised a bunch of book events. It received some routine press coverage (obviously) but clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH. Both the duration and depth of press coverage was limited. WP:Existence ≠ Notability Saqib (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but Existence does not prove notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: It is not really a publishing company. As per their official website they are distributors of books+magazines. An online store which sell books. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it seems that "Kitab Mela" is also associated with a Book Fair or Exhibition. Two of the references in the article which use this term have nothing to do with the company. HighKing++ 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: There is no significant coverage in Urdu language sources. --Saqib (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib:. Entirely possible. But, as you are the nom, this should be double checked by someone else. (I would expect the same if I was a nom.) Ross-c (talk) 11:57, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scott (military officer)[edit]

Martin Scott (military officer) (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)

Martin Scott does not come close to meeting WP:SOLDIER. He was brevetted twice the second time to lieutenant colonel, which was his rank when he was killed in the Mexican War. He had no civilian "track record" to satisfy WP:GNG. Much of the page is hearsay extracted from existing documents which, in turn, often read "I was told" or similar terms. The tale of a raccoon surrendering to Scott in lieu of being shot may be the most mind-boggling. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I should have known. Striking my comment. SpinningSpark 22:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:44, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Byrd[edit]

Tony Byrd (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 satisfy biographical notability or entertainment notability. Google search turns up no relevant in-depth coverage (vanity hits and other people). Could go with BLPPROD but using AFD to bundle related pieces by same editor on his work. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Invaders (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AIDS; An Epidemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both of these films are scheduled for release in 2019, and do not satisfy film notability when nothing is said about production. In twelve to eighteen months, films sometimes are developed and sometimes go into development hell. Mention of the films at this point is purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 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 redirect to Broward County Public Schools. Sources have not been shown to meet GNG. Appreciation extended to those who have attempted to find and add sources. There is no long-standing (previous or present) consensus that elementary schools are inherently notable. Therefore consensus is redirect. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beachside Montessori Village[edit]

Beachside Montessori Village (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)

Non-notable elementary school, nothing outside of routine local news coverage. Onel5969 TT me 03:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 03:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Norman, Bob (2010-12-28). "Is JenJen's School the Whitest in South Broward?". New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
  2. ^ Roustan, Wayne K. "Ex-president of Hollywood school's parent-teacher group stole over $53,000 police say". Sun-Sentinel.com. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
  3. ^ "Beachside Montessori Village earns 2016 Green Ribbon School Award". Hollywood Gazette. 2016-07-28. Retrieved 2018-05-03.
--SenatorFreedom (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 14:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD-R. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kudpung, that policy statement says nothing about grade 12 high schools. In its entirety, it states: "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." That seems not applicable. The topic is under discussion, it would be inappropriate to boldly redirect it now. --Doncram (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, thank you, you have correctly reported the content of the policy which I know off by heart. 'Redirect' is one of the perfectly standard, accepted, and listed closure types for AfD. I am sure that the closer will accord due weight to your vote. However, taking my comment out of context, and discrediting the policy as being inappropriate towards building consensus during this AfD, are misleading to any future voters here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:32, 5 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) 00:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How a good person can really win[edit]

How a good person can really win (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 a notable book. Page created by a SPA, and the "awards" in the references appear to be vanity awards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:10, 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) 00:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jeter[edit]

Richard Jeter (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:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Dammit_steve (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:11, 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. Sock-infested mess, and the article is a blatant advertisement. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Charles-Lemaire[edit]

Benjamin Charles-Lemaire (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)

This deletion suggestion has been created by another editor. I am converting a speedy deletion tag into an AfD tag to allow discussion about the arguments. This seems to be more productive than starting an edit-war about this.

Original message was: controversial content on legal issues, does not meet the eligibility requirements on WP FR/ Wikiplus World etc. IP: the same person for self-promotion!!

Edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Charles-Lemaire&action=history ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD on the french wikipedia is here. The article was salted there after 2 unsuccessful deletion reviews ([30], [31]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you very much for the research. Adding a comment up here as well: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Lemaire ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~ Djumbo75 (Djumbo75 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)) This person is self-promoting, has changed these names several times to see "nickname" and create his page on all wikipedia of the world, in France he has not met the conditions and has been withdrawn in recent years and on http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire (an administrator deleted it last night for lack of eligibility and problems of all kinds), it seems to me that it should also be deleted here for obvious lack of notability. Best Regards[reply]
Comment: The link is pointing to Wikimonde Plus, which appears to be a separate project and not simply a mirror. However, what Djumbo75 said is true for the French Wikipedia article too: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire (view page logs) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimonde Plus is not a separate project, please look at many pages, it's just a mirror where people can interact, and this parcular page was on war editing before of this specific user, and admin deleted because of its ware edition, fake accounts not becasue of eligility (it's written in it's log) Tifftiff1234 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC) *FALSE: The real reason for the deletion on the other WPs: "Deleted the page Benjamin Lemaire (too many problems: promotion problems, deletions of sources, slight eligibility) <= it arranges in its way apparently it is well indicated black on white" questionable eligibility and promotion, etc.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Users participing here (Djumbo75 and JohnDoe) were created to delete this article. They did exactly the same things on Wikimonde and on Wikipedia IT and DE. There is no legal issue because there point on vue are based on non confirmed sources about a justice decision. And even if the decisions were true, the fact that so little news is commentated on national media prove that the person has a real existence. Please be aware that there's a vendetta campaign against this person and Wikipedia is not a way to settle accounts. Page as deleted to French wikipedia after admin get enough of fake acounts everywhere and users are trying to to same things here. Plus, Wikipedia eligility are not often same. Here nothing is promotional (and if it, just add banner, and let's correct that) but neutral. And even if most of sources are social media/websites to prove that content or nominations exists, there are national centred sources Slate, TeleStar, Gala, 20 Minutes). User here is trying to make rumor a legal issue but it's not... There'are clear rules here. So :
controversial content on legal issues : no issue here
does not meet the eligibility requirements on WP FR/ Wikiplus World : WikiPlus said they deleted because of war edition only, WP FR deleted after a vote of many fake (and it was before most of sources here, and eligity are not same on all WP)
the same person for self-promotion!! : there are no IP, and no multiple account here...

Tifftiff1234 (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bcoz: you are a liar saying that I am a fake nose and I did absolutely nothing about the other WPs just reported what I saw! You are the only contributor of all these articles on all wikipedia... There has been a consensus that has ended with administrators, we are not talking about justice cases(??), but about its admissibility that you do not want to recognize by doing your promotion, you are a great French director? No, an actor? No! Just an artistic agent and a blogger so for you gives her the right to be there? In addition, I am for nothing at all for the removal on the wiki IT, FR, DE ??? and what you say is totally wrong, there is no vendetta! You are the one and only person who writes this article. No one else is a contributor.. I did not create to delete the article but to have a notice of eligibility, if it remains so much better for you. I have only one account otherwise if you know how to read I just ask an administrator to change my account name! I only have one and I contribute only with this one. The other users that you denounce against you are not even me, I just reported facts like two other people here in discussion by tapping on Google. For me, you are promoting, bloggers I know and assist artists but are not on WP and have been deleted for lack of notoriety. You are of a great renown in France is the real question? Answer: NO to me. Thank you for your opinion and stop with your false insinuations. Judge in your conscience, thank you! (Djumbo75 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Please do not vote twice. And you're not allowed to vote because you just arrived on Wikipedia btw. I'm not the only contributors, because the draft was there : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Benjamin_Lemaire. Just look at the history, there are dozen contributors before and after me. And please we're not here to judge personal thing, and people work, but only is there are sources or not. And here, there are. What happned on other website in not the question here. And the reasons you gave is bad translated but every one can consult it and see it's false (and btw, the history show clearly that you've been blocked for using 4 accounts (http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire), what you did here before someone noticed it ;) What everyone can see is : why does some without any contributions in Fr, En and WikiMonde, is suddenly taking care of deleting everything about someone. So please let the community debating, and if it's too promotional, feel free to edit and rewrite, that's the way it works. I voted neutral because I'm to new to vote, and creator of the article. You should do the same, not voting 2 times :) 77.136.17.168 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC) - Sorry wasn't logged, but as you can see, my IP wasn't use to edit anything else. Tifftiff1234 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: --Royalhouse (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) same opinion lack of notability, a single contributor (using 2/4 acc). I would agree with your assessment: lack of notability. Google turns up no reliable sources on him => Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Lemaire. There are a lot of sources here, but few of them appear to be independent and reliable – all the facebook/IMDb/YouTube/google/blog stuff does nothing to establish notability, but does give a strong impression that someone with a conflict of interest is trying to use Wikipedia to promote this person. Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC) CheckUser note: The following accounts are sock puppets: Liloula2200, IamAGecko, Ninobalto222, and MangoZona. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IamAGecko.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given this new information, I would like to highlight (apart from the fact that only the puppets seem to be ok with keeping the article) that 95% of the contribution to this article were made by these sock puppets, given a good information on its unreliability as well as its not notableness. Giorgio69 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC) --Royalhouse (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked on draft on IP, but it seems that anybody can create an account and vote so I vote, even it'es clear that the two "deleted vote" are from the same person. There're many primary sources, but also secondary like Slate or 20 Minutes. 1 movie out in theaters (that could be eligible), and a short movie shown and awarded in 2 A class festival that could be eligible (note that it should have 2 short eligible to be eligible to). So it's ok for me, and it's evident here that the people who ask the deletion has COI. Martingally (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
shock puppets : Go ahead and continue working on it, you left other puppets of shock? You will set an example as it is easy to create a new account! I am on WP since 2005 in Canada, France, US for more than 3 years(2015) n you, today? Class festival n Nikon short film no eligible!! It's not forbidden to get paid to influence a Wikipedia article, you just have to declare it! Not with a mention discreet report but visible at the top of the article as in the clipboard!--Royalhouse (talk) 15:05, 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. Similar lists have indeed come up before, and tend to end with the same result. Worth noting that this one has two qualifiers (Asian, music). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed Asian music videos on YouTube[edit]

List of most-viewed Asian music videos on YouTube (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)

This page is somewhat of a content fork of List of most-viewed YouTube videos and fails WP:NOTDIR point #6 (non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). We do not need a list of every subgenre of "most viewed" videos on YouTube; the main page handles that well enough. And yes, this is the same nomination rationale as for the Indian version of this page. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind attention. Rishu Shukla (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What hasn't been explained is why such as list. I still can't find the usefulness of such list. People who enjoy K-pop are more likely to enjoy American pop music than Bollywood songs. Different countries have different population, with some much more than others. Other countries share culture and language with others (like Arabic), while some are not (such as Japan). Also, YouTube's market penetrations are not the same. Some countries may have strong alternatives for videos while some have none. Acnetj (talk) 02:16, 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.
More