< 6 April	8 April >

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belhanhumei[edit]

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

Geonames says it's unverified; there is a town somewhat to the west which geonames claims is a well, but at any rate it has a different name. There is nothing at the location given. Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because reasons. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because reasons; “Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.” ― Martin Luther King, Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szzuk (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Mariana Islands women's national beach volleyball team[edit]

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

There is no national "beach volleyball team" in international sports. The sport is played by pairs, and multiple countries are often represented by various athletes. Also an external link pointing to another country. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Also nominating the following articles for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Your right as there is no such things as national beach volleyball teams, it just seems silly for there to be such a case as this one. Animation is developing 08:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If a (non-beach) women's national volleyball team exists, that should be a separately created article with separate history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We have a difference of opinion as to whether the available sources are sufficient to pass WP:GNG J04n(talk page) 18:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Bhardwaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is obviously demonstrated.The Tribune and Hindustan Times are just two examples of significant coverage.Stephreef (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Also does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. No evidence this article can ever be expanded much. Per WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page ...—Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:NBASKETBALL but passes WP:GNG per the two sources cited by Stephreef. Smartyllama (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as stated by Smartyllama above. TempleM (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the refs are independent and reliable but not providing enough coverage in depth. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Szzuk - refs don't quite seem to clear the WP:GNG bar for me. Mdann52 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Smartyllama. We often have articles about nonnotable people on en.wp whose extensive "references" are passing mentions. This is not one of them. While the 2 articles are brief, they do appear to be reliable sources and are directly about the subject of the article, not passing mentions. Martinp (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Vinicius Coelho[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who hasn't played a game in a fully professional league as defined by WikiProject Football and required by WP:NFOOTBALL. The person also hasn't played for his country in a competitive match. He was part of the Santos team that won trophies but didn't play a game. WP:NFOOTBALL not met. There is also a lack of significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. KingAndGod 22:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his current team Grêmio Esportivo Anápolis This is why I dislike football player bios. Tough to evaluate notabilty without knowing a thousand different clubs. Page says he plays for the club which I assume means he plays for the club not that he sits on the bench. A redirect will leave this work intect and restorable when he starts playing. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not worth a redirect as he'll change clubs again at some point or retire, and he's only played six matches for his current club. We can create it again if he passes WP:FOOTY at some point. SportingFlyer talk 07:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Redirecting is a bad idea. Giant Snowman 07:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Redirect doesn't really work for me as his attachment to his current club is by no means guaranteed to be permanent. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Aguirrezabala[edit]

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

Has not played a game in a fully professional league. He was part of the 14/15 season with Athletic Bilbao but didn't play a single game and was loaned out to lower divisions. Does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. KingAndGod 22:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per guidelines, not played in a pro level (yet?) and no other significant coverage. I am well aware of this player but nothing this year to merit his inclusion (so not sure why experienced creator has done so knowing this would happen?) Crowsus (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 22:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 22:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his current club. When accepting the draft I relied on experience of the creator to evaluate against WP:FOOTY If he gets field time the page can be unredirected and if not the redirect deleted someday. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect could get messy. Has come close but has not appeared in a Segunda Division match. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do not redirect to his current club, as he is currently out on a loan which will only last until the end of the season, at which point the redirect would be inappropriate. Even redirecting to the club to which he is actually contracted would cause problems as it would cease to be appropriate if he moves on (and I can guarantee nobody would remember (or care) to amend it......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Redirecting is a bad idea. Giant Snowman 07:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY. -- Dane ^talk 03:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beertasiyago[edit]

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

There are people here in the sense that the location drops into a bunch of what are obviously cultivated fields, but there is plainly no town here and no trace there ever was. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 22:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to point to an empty field. Can't find any sources to indicate that a town of that name exists elsewhere. There's a small populated place about two miles down-river which isn't labelled on Google Maps, so maybe it's supposed to point there? Without anny source to indicate whether or not that's the case, it's best to delete the page. Ajpolino (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Living Fields Policy L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie Stewart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted in 2007 for being badly-sourced self-promotion (which, if memory serves, contained a dose of outright libel against at least one individual who Jonnie Stewart disliked). It was recreated in 2008 and speedily deleted. It was recreated again in 2015 by a single-purpose account which openly admitted being a PR account working for Jonnie Stewart and complained that the previous deletions were by "unfair wikipedia editors". The only substantial edits have been carried out by single-purpose accounts. This article is irredeemable garbage and exists only to pretend that a non-notable minor-league jobber was a celebrity superstar. The article should be salted to prevent this happening again in the future. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say delete, I really really tried to look, but honestly I was kinda shocked by how little I could find. I can find more reliable coverage on someone like Matt Hart who's a rookie than this guy, which is pretty weird and chocking but somehow true. I honestly couldn't find a single great source for this guy. I have a feeling that this may be one of those cases where when the person passes away maybe people will talk about for their life but for whatever reason there is pretty much none right now.★Trekker (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From a purely political point of view, my vote is a confident delete. I also agree with Trekker above based on a before search, but I'm happy to keep the article if there's notability from a wrestling point of view, something I would have difficulty establishing/researching on my own on top of the couple searches I've already done (which confirm my delete vote). SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and since this has been recreated multiple times now, perhaps it needs a SALT - Galatz ^Talk 00:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's impossible to properly evaluate his notability or lack thereof as a wrestler, because eight of the 11 "references" here are "The named reference was invoked but never defined" errors — and of the three that are actually functional, one is a Blogspot blog and one is a directory entry, so there's only one piece of reliable source coverage that even starts to build a case for notability — but it's covering him in a context (an unsuccessful candidacy in a political party primary) that is not a notability claim regardless of referencing, so it's not actually helping. This might potentially become keepable if somebody could pile some actual referencing onto his wrestling career — but nothing in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG for his sports career, and neither the political stuff nor getting mixed up with Jon Stewart by one city's local media once counts for anything at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cincopa Ltd[edit]

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

CSD G4 declined as significantly different to previous version. Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cincopa. Still promotional, sources are press releases. Editing history suggest undisclosed paid editing. Vexations (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] G2 crowd is an aggregator of user reviews and not a reliable source
[2] HubSpot is not in independent source
[3] an alexa ranking does not establish notability
[4] onextrapixel is independent (according to them) but not reliable
[5] is by a huffpo contributor,dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability:
[6] is a press release
[7] is routine coverage, does not establish notability
[8] is routine coverage, does not establish notability
[9] is a dead link
[10] is a how-to
[11] is a press release
[12] is a blog, not a reliable source
[13] SimilarTech provides a form of analysis, possibly a good source (have never seen it used as a source before)
[14] is a press release
[15] is a how-to
[16] is a press release
[17] is a press release
[18] is a how-to
[19] is a user review site
[20] is not independent

Vexations (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Likely a violation of PROMO as nominator mentions. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant corporat advertising. With the number of IP socks removing speedy template and amount of bomb-tagging in the article so as to deceive casual observer; this article is self evident of its lack of notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the sources remain inadequate. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The subject passes WP:GEOLAND and the nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkuwal[edit]

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

This article was previously tagged for speedy deletion but a non-confirmed user then removed it. This page contains no useful information and does not have any external links or sources. Even if somebody can find references, it doesn't seem like a notable topic. However, the article currently contains so little information that it's hard to tell what it's even about, so I guess it's possible that it could be a notable subject, just not well-written or sourced at all. SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 20:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe I was the individual who tagged it for speedy deletion; at the time, the article consisted only of the term "BONKUWAL", verbatim (and, yes, all majuscules), and, as such, clearly seemed a candidate under WP:G1. I will presume the removal was not malicious, but, rather, the actions of a user who isn't too familiar with Wikipedia, which is fine. (Honestly, I didn't feel like pushing the subject.) However, a quick Google search of Bonkuwal itself doesn't show many WP:RS results, outside of perhaps a high school. Yet this page isn't about the high school, and what is concerning is the further lack of content since my tag was deleted. As such, I have no choice but to vote for its removal from English Wikipedia. — Javert2113 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC) (See below.)[reply]

Comment I think this may pass WP:NPLACE but I am unable to find an Indian government agency discussing it. I will support keep if someone can present such a source. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair. I'll probably do the same. — Javert2113 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Y--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, lots of mentions/in lists (some associated with other names) from a gsearch ie. "...of Bonkuwal Kathonibari village.", "hundreds of people, including men, women and children, from Doyang, Tengani, Bonkuwal,", "List of Total Uncovered ST-Dominated Habitations: UJONI BONKUWAL GAON", "List of Polling Booth in Bokakhat: 102 Bonkuwal Senior Basic School 745 Bonkuwal 103 Bonkuwal Senior Basic School 664 Bonkuwal 104 Bonkuwal High School 275 Bonkuwal", "Rhino Dies: A male rhino, which was shot by poachers on Monday in the Bonkuwal area near Kaziranga National Park, died on Tuesday.", "Information Regarding Representatives of PRIs: 64 Rinu Loying Golaghat Golaghat West AP Uttar Mahura 2 No. Bortika Gaon, P.O.-Bonkuwal, Golaghat - Assam AP Member". Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I guess the article is about [21] village of Golaghat District, which is practically always spelled as Bonkuwal in the reliable sources, e.g. I could find just two mentions of it in newspapers & both of them spelled it as 'Bonkuwal' – [22] & [23]. I also found several online government notifications which mention it as Bonkuwal. So Bonkuwal is common name of Bonqual, provided these two are different spellings of the same village. BTW, this is the census handbook of Golaghat district. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The census ref is enough to establish notability. Cesdeva (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As User:NitinMik has provided a source establishing this is a village recognized by the Indian government. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having evaluated the new evidence provided, I hereby change my vote to keep, as well. Just wish there was more content in the article, now. — Javert2113 (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yeah, now I'm keep as well :). I withdraw my nomination now. Sorry for any trouble.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 00:39, 9 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:SNOW.. Fish+Karate 12:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Pudding[edit]

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

Nominating on two grounds. 1) the subject lacks notability (this should be apparent on review of the article talk page), and 2) one of the subjects of the article is an editor who has taken ownership of the article as evident by his creation of an article for himself which redirects to the article nominated. TammyBri (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — TammyBri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (strike sock — Jbh ^Talk)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notability is very well established by the independent sources, the nomination appears to be disruptive and vindictive with possible socking involved. Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Andy Mabbett. A cursory search ( "Andy+Mabbett") indicates he would likely pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for books. This article has also been the subject of COI editing and self-promotion. Pigsonthewing aka Andy Mabbett is a major contributor to the article. While there are four people named as publishers, including the founder, the only person mentioned in the infobox is Mabbett (twice). Mabbett is also an author on eight of the fourteen references (three are there to support the claim he wrote three books). Of the other references one is WorldCat, one is a blog, one (The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd (1st ed.)) is merely used to support the claim that The Amazing Pudding was once the working title of a Pink Floyd song, one (Pink Floyd through the eyes of - the band, its fans, friends and foes.) is used to support the claim that another of the publishers wrote a book and one is a dead link [24] to a piece the article says was written by Mabbett. Jbh^Talk 20:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a wayback link to the dead link; it was not written by me and the article does not say that it was. I'm unclear of the relevance of WP:BOOKS (which is a shortcut to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books and not, as you claim, "notability criteria for books"), since we're discussing a magazine. http://pinkfloydarchives.com/ is not a "blog", but the website of a well-respected authority on, and associate of, Pink Floyd, Vernon Fitch, whose books on the band are cited in multiple Wikipedia articles; as indeed is that website itself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for adding the archive link. The article said 'Andy wrote the...' and I made the assumption the dead link was to bit you wrote in the program much like the links to the three books you wrote were used to support the fact you wrote them. As to the website, blog or not, it is not, as far as I can see, an independent, third party reliable source and, in this discussion that is all that matters.
    I fixed my typo, thank you for pointing it out. It now links NBOOKS so it goes to what the text says it does. Now, not only the words but the link indicate the notability criteria I think is the correct, and most lenient, one to assess notability under. Could you please point out some independent, third party reliable sources? I would think the "two non-trivial reviews" would be the easiest way meet the inclusion criteria. I know most sources will be offline and so long as they are cited well enough for our readers to locate them I am more than willing to change my !vote. Jbh^Talk 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unless you think I or one of my named co-editors at TAP is Vernon Fitch, then of course his work is independent (of the article subject; which is the requirement). It is also reliable, for the reasons I have already given. As you've already linked to WP:RS more than once in this discussion, you'll be sufficiently familiar with it that I don't need to quote it at you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The linking is from keyboard macros because I got tired of typing the same things over, and over, and over on Wikipedia. I mean no snark by it. As for the Pink Floyd Archive, I question how valid a site dedicated to archiving all things Pink Floyd contributes to independent notability. My general impression is still 'fan-site', maybe a high-quality and respectable one but one none the less. Maybe someone else wants to speak up for it. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Jbh ^Talk 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 23:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This editor [25] has appeared, opened this discussion, and voted delete as a new editor [26] following this block [27] and this vote [28]. Looks suspiciously like a sock.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep They're a notable footnote in Floydiana and the nominator is an obvious, if as yet unidentified, axe-grinding sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the nom is an obvious SOCK the article is still a COI laden heap. The only reason I did not AfD it right away when it was brought up through ANI is I wanted to spend more time doing a BEFORE since it was a niche publication from the 80's-90's. On the other hand, we have one of the main people responsible for its existence right here as an editor. If there are some good independent, third party reliable sources out there he can point us to them. Although, I do wonder — if there are good independent, third party reliable sources out there why have they not been added in the last fifteen years? Jbh ^Talk 21:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about '80s-'90s UK fandom. It's recognised as being low on leaving a web footprint, or one in "establishment" publishers. See also the UK pirate radio articles deleted (at the whim of another obvious sock too - Why do socks get such a strong vote here?). This was the era of DTP and DIY-ethos fanzines. Which are great at filling people's dusty wardrobes, but things which aren't trivially on-line to WP's goldfish AfD concentration span suffer a systemic bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That is why I had not sent it to AfD myself yet. No matter the era sources are required though. Jbh ^Talk 22:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, let's go for a WP:CSD#G10 on this AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? An attack page. I know people are rallying around an editor who they feel is being wronged but this is not G10 material and, at a minimum, a there is reason to question the notability of the article on its merits. Jbh ^Talk 22:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "rallying round" Andy Mabbett? Seriously? But this is an obvious sock, created solely to file an AfD (can they even do that, with the create page thing? Hmmm) and WP is falling over itself to run to a disruptive, attack sock's bidding? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is you are doing you are not addressing the arguments for deletion which I have brought up. Really, once attention was brought to the article at ANI it was going to go to AfD. The only question is when. I can say with 95%+ confidence that I would have nominated the article before Monday for the reasons I stated in my !vote. All the sock did was move up the nomination and stir up drama. Jbh ^Talk 23:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My interest is declared. Although I started the article, that was in October 2003 - colleagues are welcome to compare Wikipedia's CoI policy then (hint: it was not created until May 2004) with the current one; with which I naturally comply. My edits for the last decade or more have been confined to factual updates, requested citations, removal of vandalism, and trivial formatting such as date templates. Other, established, neutral, editors have edited it heavily in the meantime. As to notability, the magazine was discussed on national radio, and in the national press, and reviewed in the music press, and was the subject of a feature interview with me in Q magazine circa 1992 - I'll need to dig my copy out of storage to give a full citation. The claim of "ownership" is fatuous and without evidence. Relevant discussions are at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BrillLyle and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 7#Andy Mabbett. I have just filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrillLyle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't yet laid my hands on my copy, but it was issue 79 of Q, published March 1993 (cover date may have been April), and was by Stuart Maconie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another citation, to Nicholas Schaffner's book on the band. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Google scholar also has some data on citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't understand the rationale, notability seems to be well established. --Muhandes (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please indicate how notability has been established? Which source(s) do you think get it over the bar? I am genuinely interested and concerned that I may have misjudged one or more of the sources. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 22:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the ... disappointing nomination. I've found one non-trivial source not written by Andy on Google Books and my university's online resources (sorry, Andy, but you don't meet the independent sources criterion!). That said, I'm open to being convinced otherwise if Andy does indeed have those citations handy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While my memory is not a reliable source, I recall both The Amazing Pudding and Brain Damage being name-checked in a major Record Collector piece about Pink Floyd, published around the time of the 1994 Division Bell tour. So I believe there is coverage in independent-sources, just nothing more than passing mentions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was coverage in several issues of Record Collector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed there was, but I'm struggling to recall anything that wasn't simply "The Amazing Pudding is a long-established Pink Floyd fanzine". What do the sources day? Did the fanzine have any endorsement from the band or related personel? Did it offer exclusive interviews or deliver important information? What did the fanzine produce that would make people who can't stand Pink Floyd sit up and take note? (And, while I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if we can have an article on this, surely we can also have Brain Damage (fanzine)?) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Record Collector reviewed individual issues. Since you ask, I personally interviewed David Gilmour, Nick Mason, Roy Harper (more than once), Peter Jenner, James Galway, Sam Brown, Clive Welham, Robert Wyatt, John Bundrick, Daevid Allen, and others for TAP. The band were pictured with the magazine in publicity shots. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, well that's the sort of information that needs to go into the article (don't look at me, I haven't got the sources) as it will help cement notability. I think the COI issue is a red herring; if you are citing information to prove notability in a manner that any other reasonable editor would have done too, then I don't see a problem. As I have said before, I don't think the COI policy was designed to prevent subject experts from correcting facts or supplying additional information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ritchie333: I'd be happy to oblige, but they'd be cited to the relevant issues of TAP, not third-party sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likely keep. According to one of the former editors (not Andy), the fanzine received contemporaneous coverage in Q, Record Collector, The Observer and News of the World. It may be tricky to dig up archive copies of those publications, but if the coverage actually existed, then this subject is very likely to meet WP:GNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Strong Delete.~~ Beside the obvious COI in the fact that (a) the page was started by Andy Mabbett and (b) Andy set up a redirect to his name to point to the page, which let's face it, is a bit insane in any evaluation of the matter, the issue is that this article is just not adequately sourced from independent sources non-Mabbette. It is not successfully establishing notability. The fact that the majority of the citations are references to itself underlines this problem. If the article was significantly expanded and sourced appropriately then that would be another matter. But as it stands, and with the COI of the major contributor and stakeholder so clearly problematic, I think keeping this article on Wikipedia is a real mistake. It makes the encyclopedia look like a joke, really. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to do a bit of cleanup of the article, because I like Pink Floyd and appreciate fan-based collectives as much as the next person, but I had a hard time finding information to support notability. And any cleanup I could do was changing 7 digit ISBNs to 13 digit, and adding a curated WorlCat OCLC link. I did this as a good faith effort to contribute and be positive here. Nothing else. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did a bunch of further edits to the page, hopefully removing the fancrufting that initially concerned me (i.e., the number of TAP references), and added additional citations and content to support the zine as a notable publication. I resolved (in my own mind at least) the other concerns I had about the related publications, as the more I learned, the more I found out that TAP was a strong basis for these connected publications. Some of the 15 citations are a bit thin, I acknowledge, but until and if Mabette digs into his clippings archives for substantive coverage of the zine, this suffices (again in my mind) as an adequate and notable stub article. This issue of unavailable citations due to the pre-internet nature of the publication's lifespan is not uncommon, so I think a somewhat inclusive approach to these citations is okay. I am still not convinced that the Andy Mabbett redirect is wholly necessary, but whatever the consensus is, so be it. And see, Andy, I'm not a total bastard, am I? Ha ha ha.... :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - In his continued efforts against me, on the ANI board Andy and other editors have made it clear that these efforts are not appreciated, however much they might improve the article. So I will stop editing this article now. I am a naive fool thinking this was about editing at all -- or improving content on Wikipedia. Forgive me. - Erika aka — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrillLyle (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with Pink Floyd~~. I don’t think there’s enough for a dedicated article, but it does deserve a few setences at the main band article, as does fellow fanzine Brain Damage. Given there are strong opinions towards both keeping and deleting the article, a merge may be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do confess I have at times wondered if I could turn Andy Mabbett into a full article, since he is known for both his Floyd books and his WiR / Outreach work for Wikimedia, both of which have some coverage in sources. In fact, I would argue he is more notable than this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Keep - article appears to have been nicely expanded and cleaned up, and has a few facts I didn't know about (and I've done more than a bit of work on Floyd articles myself). Now, who wants to create Brain Damage (fanzine)? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question: Since this page is a redirect to Andy Mabett, is there a conflict of interest that would prohibit him from editing the page, which he is currently doing? I know there is no remuneration in a fanzine, but it is so interconnected. I would think that de facto editing your own page is not acceptable, so editing the page your name redirects to would therefore also be problematic? Not trying to be a jerk here, just genuinely wondering about this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be Best Practice for him to make a note of the real life connection on the talk page, but as long as he keeps the editing within NPOV and enhances factual accuracy, there's no problem whatsoever with him editing here. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Carrite: I have indeed added such a notice - I did so in October 2008. (It's still there.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But this page is not a redirect to Andy Mabbett. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad faith nomination. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would this not be user-forced withdrawn? Otr500 (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not now there have been delete votes by good-faith editors, no.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources have been provided to establish notability.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Bad faith nom by blocked account. Also plenty of independent sources to demonstrate notability, particularly on, as noted, a topic that is pre-Google in origin. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Khan[edit]

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

Article is about an actor who is apparently fairly minor; all GNews hits for his name (both stage and real) pull up unrelated individuals or name-drops/interviews. Only one source at present (not counting IMDb). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor actor, nothing to show they meet notability. Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 22:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 22:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. samee converse 20:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aporetic Press[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs are all about books published by he press of individuals associated with it. Nothing to assert any notability for the company. Searches fare little better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 6 refs providing a single one line mention, nothing on google I can see, wp:before accurate. Szzuk (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Terence McSweeney is a possibly notable writer, but notability is not automatically inherited.

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred A. Barrios[edit]

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

One citation... does not appear notable to me. RobP (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created by a SPA. My guess is the subject himself, or someone close to him. See: here RobP (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing to indicate this subject meets either the general or academic notability standards. A News search finds only a short interview from 2015 and a passing reference in a piece from 2011. Neither is in English so I can't be certain what they say, but neither is substantial. JSTOR does not list a single publication of his. I searched for evidence of the awards that are mentioned, but without success. The article is replete with impressive-sounding claims that do not appear to be supported by evidence.--Gronk Oz (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one citation and the article was written in 2010 and it is still here. Shame on us. And sadly it does appear to have been a SPA that wrote it. As Gronk Oz says the wording is clearly glowing and no citations to support those glows, when clearly there should be. Also notice the name L Ron Hubbard which always sends red flags up the flagpole for me.Sgerbic (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 22:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 22:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious delete, per nom. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. The one source cited does mention the subject after archive rescue, but it is of low quality, does not support the associated claim, and is the author's own work. Poorlyglot (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PhD clinical psychologists are not default notable for being such and nothing else suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned, only one source exists and it is not independent of the subject per WP:GNG. JeffreyV55 (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Michael Braufman[edit]

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

Not a notable musician. There are no coverage for this person and the article does not pass WP:MBIO and WP:GNG. KingAndGod 17:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was an Unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 16:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations[edit]

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

This article has been created against consensus. From November 21 to December 30, 2017, there was a RFC that took place over this very topic. The result was to merge this topic into Political appointments by Donald Trump as every administration official will eventually resign. Everything in this article is already listed at Political appointments by Donald Trump. Corky 16:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the political appointments by donald trump article severely needs splitting; this can be one of the splits; the article can be renamed - " dismissals and early resignations" to counteract that other problem/ doesn't even need renaming to disinclude those before the 4 years/however many he gets. Also the formatting of Political appointments by Donald Trump is terrible, at the very least this article should be merged in Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we already have a consensus and there should have been a new consensus before this page was created. "the formatting of ... is terrible" is also an opinion, which you can raise at the article's talk page. Corky 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating (or recreating) an article doesn't need an RfC. If you think the article creator was being disruptive, that can be dealt with elsewhere. With a few months having gone by, however, and with a relatively small turnout in that RfC, and without it ever having gone to XfD, it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to try again. The risk is that if there really is a solid consensus against having this article, it would be a waste of their time and we will see that consensus upheld here. Regardless, I do hope the circumstances of a spinout having been proposed and rejected and a new article created anyway will dissuade anyone from !voting keep only because this should happen through a merge proposal (i.e. I think AfD is reasonable). Neutral on the spinout, though. The page is big, so could probably use spinning out, and there's certainly a lot of coverage of this topic, but meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I think it is good compilation of Trump's dismissals. --Seneca Quayle (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the lede states (with multiple references), "The record-setting turnover rate in the Trump Administration has been noted in various publications." The topic is notable (as demonstrated by the wealth of in-depth coverage across the entire media spectrum) and this is a valid content fork. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because it seems impossible for editors to put the most recent news on Trump in an already-existing article that could easily accomandate the necessary content. Perhaps, a decade from now, when the Trump presidency is a memory we can have a serious conversation on this, and other, articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and the inclusion criteria are well-defined. XOR'easter (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keepfefe per ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹. The comings and goings are occurring at an unprecedented rate (but there's always room for one more). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable topic. This could end up being a really big article. I was wondering what the count was up to now? Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page is about people who left the trump administration the page the list in apointments is about people who were apointed by trump and left a loy of people were not apointed by trump rather there were apointed by the cabinet members — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.48.195 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can be editorially created. Sandstein 11:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co[edit]

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

Not a notable firm; I can find no significant in depth press or academic sources about them. Not sure the merger of them with a Canadian firm helped with that. Isingness (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Existed less than 2 years. All references are either from firm's own website or press release noise.--Rpclod (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gowling WLG, the firm with which it merged. Normal practice is to make the article for the final entity, with redirects from earler parts, unlss the earlier parts are much better known. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not (actually "is not suppose to be") a yellow page advertising (world business directory) vehicle. This "old" company has zero WP:notability of any historical nature. Since it merged it no longer exists right? ---- I cannot see support of merging one non-existant yellow page listing for another 2016 yellow page listing that is not notable. Otr500 (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business Council of Canada[edit]

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

No significant press showing that this organization is notable beyond its members, but notability is not inherited. Isingness (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable on its own and cannot inherit notability from its members.--Rpclod (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mullai[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR – subject did not act in a significant role in a major film, has no evident fan base, and has not made any significant or notable contributions to entertainment. Also cited by dubious, unverifiable sources. hiàn 02:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redirect. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The article title 'Mullai' more commonly refers to a type of ancient landscape in Tamil Nadu, described in this section. Although that section content is questionable itself so i'm not suggesting any kind of targeted redirect. Cesdeva (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Mullai' is apparently another (possibly Tamil) name for Jasmine. Refs book, book, book and The Hindu, The Hindu2. There is confliction between The Hindu and the book sources over whether 'Mullai' refers to Jasminum sambac or Jasminum auriculatum. I'm hoping we can delete current page and just create a redirect to Jasmine? I'm drifting off AfD topic though. Cesdeva (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of coverage by authoritative sources, much less meeting WP:NACTOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:14, 7 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. There was mention of redirect but I'm not seeing a target, he's not mentioned at List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Feel free to create a redirect to an appropriate target. J04n(talk page) 12:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Adams[edit]

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

A page on an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards listed are not significant; Grabby Awards do not qualify. The crime and conviction information is cited to a blog of unknown provenance. Delete on WP:N and WP:BLP grounds. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I would be fine with a "delete & redirect" to GayVN_Awards#2005. BLP concerns still remain. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A page on an unremarkable performer" - a personal opinion. someone who made around 50 movies can't be that unremarkable, surely.

There are two GayVN awards listed which qualify other articles for inclusion. It is not just the Grabby awards in the article.

And the blog of "unknown provenance" is no more unknown than 100s of thousands of other links on Wikipedia.

I think it is an interesting article, well-written. I can think of loads of other articles ripe for deletion before this one. Where do I vote to keep it Cannonmc (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His two GayVN awards are notable enough to be listed on the Wikipedia page GayVN Awards Cannonmc (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify. The nom's analysis is mostly on target, but the GayVN award for Performer of the Year is likely the most significant award given to gay porn performers and creates a presumption of notability. The existing text surely merits TNT-ing, though. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: the awards by themselves, absent sources, have not been sufficient at the recent AfDs. The best that can be done is to redirect the page to GayVN_Awards#2005. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sascha (actor), a hall of fame inductee, which closed as a redirect. Given that the content in the Adams case is BLP violating, "delete & redirect" is the way to go.
~~Keep~~ - Could we have a little less Wikipedia jargon and a little more plain English. I am having difficulty in following the arguments for deleting, those I do follow I disagree with. I came across a biographical article yesterday where the subject had nothing more notable than he had made some movies. No sign of anyone wanting to delete that. I do feel there are more important concerns on Wikipedia than the deletion of this one page which at least gives some information. Cannonmc (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your !vote as you've already !voted. –Davey2010^Talk 01:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further nom's comment: so far the two keep votes are along the lines of "it's notable" and "other stuff exists". No sources have been presented as part of this discussion to substantiate the votes. Meanwhile, BLP concerns remain re: crime attributed to the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep's further comment I have no idea how votes work so I didn't realise that I counted as voting twice. I am still at a loss to know why the 'nom' is so obsessed about this one insignificant page which is at least written in English. I don't know what extra he seems to want. And I could point him to dozens of Wikipedia articles which use English words but make no sense at all which are far more suitable to be ditched Cannonmc (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trying to use an award presented by a free local biweekly is not going to meet WP:PORNBIO requirements.--Rpclod (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another comment Not wuite sure which 'free local biweekly' is referred to but GAYVN Awards merit a Wikipedia page of their own and are quoted extensively on other pages. Now could we forget this page and move onto bigger stuff like the numerous scientific, medical or financial pages that are unreadable and incomprehensible? Cannonmc (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: Serious BLP concerns including the arrest and prison time. The subject was arrested, convicted, and served time as Kelly Kreitz that is the subjects legal name. The main reference is a specialized magazine as Metro Weekly is listed as Washington's LGBTQ Magazine and the same with Gay Chicago Magazine. Otr500 (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article subject won the GayVN Award for "Performer of the Year", which is the best-known and most significant award given in his field. If we delete this article outright (as opposed to reducing it to a stub), we're essentially overriding the hard-fought consensus that awards can be indicators of notability in the field of gay porn, deciding that they are not at all. I believe that they are very bad indicators, but dismissing the highest-level award pretty much writes this criterion out of the notability guideline. I'm not unwilling to do that, but I believe it's something that, if it's done, should be done in a broader discussion than a single AfD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sascha (actor), which closed as redirect, withe following rationale:

The result was "redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame". Editors who argued in favour of keeping this article largely cited WP:PORNBIO as the subject is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame. While true, this is a guideline on notability, and does not replace the core requirement for articles to have been the subject of secondary sources of reliable information, as argued by delete/redirect voters. No such reliable secondary sources were presented and no convincing arguments were made that a lack of independent sources was acceptable. I thus find that there is a stronger argument against keeping the article, with a redirect being the most sensible option.

I believe the same rationale applies here, and even more strongly given that the content is BLP violating. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is there any indication that "Performer of the Year" for the GAYVN Awards is notable? Without that, I cannot see how he passes any of the qualities mentioned in WP:PORNBIO because he certainly doesn't pass two or three.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitest Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is just a mess. First off, obvious attempt to advertise is obvious, but could probably be trimmed to avoid G11 if done skillfully. There's some pretty close paraphrasing of this source, but again, of the type that could probably be excised.

Besides that, if you filter out "survey" (there are a few mentions of them in passing to reference a survey they've done) you're left with almost entirely blogs, and press releases and by the bottom of the first page of results you get things like this popping up only because someone who works there left a comment. Best things out there are probably this and this which are both still pretty advertorial. GMG ^talk 12:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to demonstrate that the concerns from the first AfD have been addressed. WP:GNG still not met. - Galatz ^Talk 13:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe a large outsourcing company, but still not notable. Would it be too soon to WP:SALT? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Well, there's some additional sources now, among the best of them are this and this. Although at the end of the day both are fairly routine coverage of an acquisition. Other's like this are just not-so thinly veiled advertisements. Other's are just...not worth mentioning at all really. GMG^talk 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I just correctly formatted the entries and most are database entries with no qualitative coverage. Others are redistributed press releases. Others are without a byline (no author nor location of writing) and so fail RS. Two are RSes but are too short to help contribute to WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Aside from a relatively recently added Applause (software company), there seems to be a strong bias in Wikipedia against software testing companies if they are private (Cigniti is missing too) and pure plays. The format is now similar to Applause, although the acquisition history makes it much longer. There may need to be a disambiguity with another Qualitest, a pharma company. I think this QualiTest's write up can be cleaned up and saved, despite how it looked initially. Drome.Guy (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a bias on Wikipedia against subjects that have not received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources. GMG ^talk 01:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- By bias, I meant that Buy/Sell/Exchange news is not generated for private companies, so there is less "sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources" for the world (including Wikipedia) to review. I reviewed pure play QA companies in Gartner's Magic Quadrant and observed how private companies listed are less likely to be in Wikipedia -- this is a criticism of Internet data, not Wikipedia. SQS AG (now part of Assystem) seems to suffer as the original QualiTest Group posting here (1 reference - itself - SQS AG's really reads like a brochure), and Tech Mahindra had a mystery poster listing all 60+ countries with offices. I understand that I should not model my editing on those 2 examples. My quoting a founder (noted as such) was to give a little color which naturally is, well, colorful -- please remove if that's too editorial for Wikipedia -- I wanted to add some personality. Most companies listed there and in Wikipedia are heavy into history, acquisitions, and not-their-website references. I'm new to Wikipedia and welcome guidance from the pros here, as I try to learn what is proper and appropriate. Drome.Guy (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have addressed the "This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources." so we're way ahead of the SQS AG page. We are not as good as many of the other SQA company pages, but pure plays have less to talk about without sounding like a sales brochure ("These services! These clients! These offices!"). The bias in the page has been lessened. There is news/internet presence, which on the surface looks higher than when they first tried to add themselves. But now, it isn't from heavily quoting themselves. Drome.Guy (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.238.164 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - corporate listings, press releases and the subject's own website do not qualify as authoritative references supporting notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and looks like an attempt at promotion to me. -- Dane ^talk 04:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Evaluating this AfD, there were many !votes for keep with a fuzzy understanding of how applicable policy may apply to the article given the sources and coverage. Both sides have arguments that are vague and don't necessarily refute the other side. Some participants expressed their views without a !vote, however their views also expressed interest in keeping but not necessarily for policy reasons. There was no consensus for redirect and based on the quality and content of the comments here, I am closing this as no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 04:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tipper[edit]

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

Edward Tipper was an enlisted man in E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. He was with the company from its early training until he lost an eye during Operation Overlord. His rank (private first class) and awards (highest U.S. Purple Heart) leave him unqualified for a page under WP:SOLDIER (His page shows a Bronze Star Medal but there is no information about the conditions under which it was awarded; the decision in 1947 to award Bronze Stars to infantrymen is noted). Post-War, he earned a masters degree and became a teacher; while well regarded at the local level, he did not achieve wide-ranging notability. Information about Tipper did appear in both the Ambrose work and the mini-series based on it and in We Who Are Alive and Remain.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Smmurphy: kindly pointed out to me Tipper's obituary appeared in a number of newspapers nationwide; the obituary had been picked up by the Associated Press. I counted about twenty papers. The notices were basically similar and spoke of his brief time in the Army and his career as a teacher.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the previous comment, Tipper's obituary was carried by the Associated Press and published in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune (shortened), Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Indianapolis Star (shortened), South Florida Sentinel, and many more papers. The Denver Post obituary linked in the article is longer than most of these, which are about 11 paragraphs. You can find more at google books or newspapers.com. Outside of this and BoB-verse material, there is not much interest in him from the news. Thus the "Early life" and "Later life" sections of the article likely passes WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Parts of the Military Service sections are only in the BoB-verse material, I don't know whether or not they are well documented enough to pass V, but they may be corroborated from records possibly available at Fold3 or elsewhere. The John Hay Fellowship was awarded to a large number (Brotherton says Tipper said about 30, but elsewhere the number in 1961 is said to be 76) of teachers (fourteen are listed here). Finally, the portrayal of Tipper in the miniseries is a significant part of a masters these (here). As that thesis has not, that I can find, been cited elsewhere, it may not be considered reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As I don't think BoB-verse books are terribly reliable, I see this case largely as one of having a number of poor sources, a widely carried obituary, and a (or possibly more) routine mention. I don't have a !vote at this time. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that his military career was given major prominence through the clearly notable Band of Brothers makes him more notable than his career alone would suggest. He's received significant coverage in both a book and a major TV series. Mattyjohn (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous Keep:WP:MILNG is deliberately rather vague on people, giving a significant non-stated area between those definitely in and definitely out. Mattyjohn is correct that having his actions portrayed in a major series certainly would appear to bump him up - there are counterparts to the source given that indicate that the bronze star was awarded (the original does too, but the relevant bit hides under a pay wall rapidly). Therefore I am inclined to say the article scrapes in. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't doubt that Tipper was a nice guy but he didn't have a "military career;" he was discharged in 1945 after losing an eye in Normandy in 1944. he's is barely mentioned in the book and series (as compared to Guarnere, Winters, Webster, Compton, and Speirs); the information that does appear is largely anecdotal. There's nothing in Ambrose's book about Tipper being involved in the fence-cutting incident that was featured in the first(?) episode of the series; the producers admitted to combining characters. There's no mention of Tipper getting a Bronze Star in Ambrose's book; Tipper may have received one under the later provision of awarding BSMs (without the "V" device) to infantrymen, which I'm not knocking.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep: Because I like it~~ --- Comments: If we can't decide IAR then just consensus against policy will work. The subject was portrayed in a mini-series, apparenty not a major character nor even a minor one with a major roll in three episodes. As far as I know the subject did not author anything such as Edward Heffron, but an editor above has found reportedly "significant coverage", that might be national coverage via obituaries picked up by the Associate Press, and there should be no reason (other than policies and guidelines) why we can't build biographies from obituaries maybe except WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Since !voting sometimes actually translates to head counts or "no consensus" by confusion, I will obstain from !voting because "I do like it". That is not suppose to be a reason for a "keep !vote" as the bigraphical guideline states "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.". GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." A Bronze Star could have been given by any captain to any person under his command that was "mentioned in orders" or "received a certificate for exceptional service", having performed a deed of "merit". This could be to any military person that had received the Combat Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medical Badge so is not that "significant". Lacking the "oak leaf cluster", golden star, or "V" for "heoism in battle", it is not monumentally notable. Lacking a consensus for WP:IAR we can stretch the included "interesting" reasoning, that still seems better listed as "because I like it", when lacking the needed sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to book or movie. Insufficient individual notability to support an article.--Rpclod (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for being portrayed in the Band of Brothers series as well as in the book. The Band of Brothers template includes this page. No harm in keeping it, and a gain for Band of Brothers researchers to be able to access it. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 7 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 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Journal[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, effectively unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[No comment on notability at this time]. If this is not notable, it should be redirected to Metro#Periodicals or a similar target. A newspaper is not an organisation, it is a periodical publication. The relevant guidelines, essays, standards and indicators for periodicals include GNG, NJOURNAL, NMEDIA, NBOOK, circulation and so on. "Unsourced" should not be applied to an article merely because lacks independent sources. That isn't what the word means. The ISSN in this article appears to actually refer to an Oklahoma publication with the same name. The Malayan name (when copied from this article where it shows up as a series of black squares on my device) brings up nothing in Google, including GBooks, GScholar, GNews. "MicNode News" brings up nothing in GBooks or GNews. It does have something in Crunchbase where it is described as a "micro news" outlet ~~(not a good sign in relation to notability).~~ The involvement of the speaker of the state legislature would be a point in favour of this article if it could be verified. "Metro Journal" brings up a lot of background noise in searches due to similarly named publications and is difficult to search. If this publication is not notable, I think that a redirect (possibly without merge) to a list of, or to one of, the other 'Metros' (they tend to be very high circulation newspapers/periodicals distributed on public transport; I'm not sure if they are all connected, though at least some of them are from Metro International; bear in mind also that newspapers can be correctly called "journals" [29]), or perhaps a disambiguation page or list, would be the correct outcome. We will want this page name per ATD and R, if only as a redirect to our disambiguation page Metro#Periodicals. James500 (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Comment modified. James500 (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a genuine newspapaper and is notable. It is worth noting that WP:AFD isn't the place to take an article, simply because it lacks source. I did the initial work to check whether the paper was genuine. It is. it is listed on the India State legislature website, as a Indian newspaper, and is licenced accordingly. As regards the ISSN number, I don't think it has a location element. Although the French maintain the ISSN system, I think you can request an ISSN at any large regional library, like a US state library, so I took it as read, that some backers who set the paper up, were based in Oklahoma US, and they requsted it there. James500 Did you check they Malayalam language version of Google. Google is very good at English and other western language search, but not so good at India sub languages, in the Malayalam language. Please do the work and find government listing. scope_creep (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware there was a Malayalam language version of Google. Is this it? If so, my (old and not very powerful) browser won't load it. It keeps choking on the page. Someone else will have to look. I've modified by comment to make it clear I am not commenting on notability. James500 (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, it was a while ago. You can tell Google search, to search in the base language, and return the results as English, so is doing on the fly translation. Although I think your right. I think the normal Google Indian one will cover the language at www.google.co.in If you cant find, I'll do it. We will need a source anyway to save it from future Afd's, if it doesn't get Afd'd here. I'll do a search on Monday. scope_creep (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no claim of notability and as it stands it is borderline promotional, consisting mainly of an announcement of the paper's new website. Deb (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking notability. The article contains very few sources, either in English or in Malayalam. Possibly out of laziness; probably because there's nothing really out there. -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your not doing the work. It it officially registered as an Indian newspaper serving Malayalam folk, which is clearly displayed on the India government website as being licenced. It is clearly notable. WP:Afd is not the place to send article that don't have references. There is over 200k articles that don't sources including 1500+ biographies. scope_creep (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what are we supposed to do with (or on account of) the many non-sourced articles? I say, keep working towards eliminating them. And, importantly, not using them as an argument for keeping other bad stuff up. -The Gnome (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, clearly nobody is willing to spend the time and actually conduct a sufficiently deep search, using Google India, to find and verify sources, of which I'm sure there will be dozens, as the paper is well established, and officially licenced by the Indian government to operate. I suspect the language and people of Kerala are not particuly well by served google.com, and it takes more than a few second of work to find information from there. But having no sources is not a deletion criteria. The whole premise of this Afd is broken as WP:CORPDEPTH is NOT a notabilty criteria for newspapers and lack of sources is NOT a reason for flagging for deletion via WP:AFD. It was a new website, as with most newspapers these days, it has moved from print and ink into the digial domain. scope_creep (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Two comments: One, I happen to believe that the various versions of Wikipedia across languages are bound to differ significantly in terms of what's in it, of how extensive the text is, and what the cultural and other references are (including the sources, of course). So, although we're bound to have the same text, or thereabouts, about a mathematics or physics subject, we might have in English articles that do not even exist in the Arabic version, and vice versa.

Two, about this particular AfD, it may have been indeed introduced on the basis of WP:CORPDEPTH, but all the comments are immediately about notability! (Proud of my Wiki colleagues, etc.) So was mine. At the end of the day, is the subject of the contested article notable enough per sources? I believe it isn't, as far as English-language sources are concerned, and, since I do not have access to other-language sources, I see no place for the article here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable being sourced only with one primary source that does not advance notability. On a search the first thing at the top of the list was the Metro Journal ----- of Canada. Otr500 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get you. That is a French national daily newspaper your looking at. The paper I want to keep, is a digital paper that server a small indigenousness population of 20million or so Malayalam speaking folks in the Indian state of Kerala. Unlike India, France is well served by Google. scope_creep (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto: as I don't get you. There are processes in place to argue changing policy. With your opinion we could have an article on "everything Earth" that has a primary website. Maybe The Indian Wikipedia has different policies and guidelines as I see you have over six times the edit count that I do. It would seem you would know this but maybe even Wikipedia is different in India. All I know, 20 million population or 100 million, is that I can not find sources to confirm the primary source as notable. Otr500 (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long did you take to do the search, and I've never mentioned the India Wikipedia. I have no idea whats on it. Nor an I arguing for changing policy. There is over 200,000 articles, some on major subjects that dont have references, because the time hasnt been available to do it. That doesnt make them Afd material. Did you take more than two hours to do the search? scope_creep (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it if other stuff exists. The other 199,999 articles will have to wait their turn. I am sorry but I was having trouble typing while laughing so hard. I did try to remember where it was in the policies or guidelines to perform a two hour search for sources before nominating or participating in an AFD. You appear to be advancing that the subject is notable even without the required sourcing. The condition of an article does not determine notability but we can only make that determination according to what we can find. It could be too soon but someone stole the Wikipedia crystal ball. All unsourced or undersourced articles are candidates for AFD if a BEFORE search fails to find notability. However, this AFD is concerning this subject and I did not find sourcing to advance notability. Here is a thought: Why don't you search for two hours or one more day, and add sources to the article, other than the Indian government, that will provide evidence of notability instead of just advocating it is notable? FYI-- have you heard about DUCK? Asserting that there is still notability "out there" somewhere in the Universe, regardless of an inability of other editors to find it, is acually contrary to policies and guidelines.

So I'm trying to save an article for Wikipedia, to enrich it a wee bit and your laughing at me. Clearly you have decided to abandon good sense, WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. We'll see what Ani says about it. I think DUCK is an essay and not a policy, and is targeted at filing editor level and those who are abusive users, and is specific to SPI, COI and Copyright abuse, and has nothing to do with article construction in general, and nothing to do with reference generation. I did the BEFORE search and found the source that states it is a licenced newspaper that enabled the article to be moved from Afc draft into mainspace, and I'm satisfied that makes the newspaper notable, otherwise it would be a blog. I figured some Indian or Malayalam speaking editor would have found several more by now, but it is a very poor region and I suspect editor coverage is slim. If did a BEFORE search, and I'm satisified. You have said you havent done a deep search, so why vote in the Afd in the first place, if you are unwilling to put the time in to establish a source. I would suggest avoiding WP:AFD in the future, if your not willing or capable of doing the work, when it needs to get busy. scope_creep (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't laughing at anyone but on a really serious note: You (not me or other editors) save the article. You have not linked to one source that I (or others) can check (WP:VERIFY) that might advance notability. From my point of view "you" are trying to command that "we" search for sourcing. I did search and found a "lack of sourcing" to advance notability. "IF" you have found sources pray tell where they are? We need "sources" (plural) to save the article from this AFD ---and any in the future that would surely happen. Otr500 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main Uddin Pathan[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable academic written by one of his sons. Google search only returns social media. Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG আফতাব (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not support WP:NACADEMIC criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Conner-Green[edit]

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

An autobiography with notability issues and weak sources. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo piece about someone with no notability Lyndaship (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , clearly conceived for promotional purposes. Also has all the hallmarks of paid editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of importance or significance, and the refs are promotion about a person who promotes things professionally, or random podcasts she has appeared on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN — we are not a place where people are entitled to start PR-toned articles about themselves just because they exist, but the references here are not reliable sources for the purposes of demonstrating that she would clear a notability standard: they are all primary sources and blogs and podcasts and YouTube videos, not media coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the visual style of the page makes it clear it is functioning as self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probiotherapy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTESSAY, statements such as "Generally it is believed"... lots of WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (albeit with a somewhat different rationale, since I'm not sure OR can be the main reason for deletion). The article should demonstrate WP:GNG is met - through non-primary sources, of course - and it seems to me that the non-primary sources in question do not discuss "probiotherapy" as a term at all (since they all predate what the article declares to be the first use of the term in 2017). At best this is a merge to microbiota, but there is barely anything to merge. GregorB (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "article" is not very coherent, and the term is a neologism invented in "May 2017 by a Belgian biotech company, YUN NV". This is not generally notable. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: marketing fluff, neologism, vacuous account, not notable. If there's anything in here, it's also already in other articles. Time to ... disinfect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Opionated, marking and not notable = no go --Sau226 (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. G5-ed. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swoopna Suman[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources are either unreliable or self-published. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : First of all i want to let you all to know that this user GSD tagged this article as speedy deletion without any research about the musican on Google. After that we discussed about the notability and reliable source. And now he has tagged article for AFD. So, Article should not be deleted he has been featured many times in National newspaper, Magazine and Televisions. Like kathmandu post, Kantipur, M&S , TNM & My republica . Mr.Prks (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mr.Prks (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

As I mentioned on the talk page those sources are not reliable in my views and secondly my WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any reliable, independent sources of information with in-depth coverage except a bunch of passing mentions for Swoopna Suman. The article has been deleted twice times under Swoopna suman and I strongly believe it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teminite[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage. Most of the existing sources in the article are primary and cannot be used to establish notability. Does not pass WP:MBIO & WP:GNG. KingAndGod 08:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried a web search but failed to locate any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources All sources, especially the dates (months, years) can be found with the corresponding links. Exampel the dates of song relases can be found if you move the cursor over the words "1 year ago" etc. on soundcloud links etc. Additional sources (media etc.) will be added tonight. WP:BASIC. vincelikesit (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2018 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincelikesit (talk • contribs)

Delete as per nominator fails WP:MBIO & WP:GNG. FITINDIA 05:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Neupane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources are either unreliable or self-published. The page has been repeatedly created under various titles by multiple users, and subsequently deleted via AfD and CSD. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cause the musician is notable and the article is reviewed and approved by wikipedia project Nepal and he has been also featured in Huffpost and National newspapers. So, article should be kept--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable Nepali singer [30] , [31], [32], [33] featured in nation and international newspapers television idependently released three albums thus it should be kept respectively. CoderPradip (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — CoderPradip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - nothing indicates the subject has received a major award, led significant national charts, or otherwise met WP:MUSICBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt--Spam.Per nom and Rpclod.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt persistent efforts to push a non-notable bio in for years should be rewarded. Alternative outlets for promotion exist. Wikipedia is not the right place. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I suspect there's an element of systemic bias here, because there are a lot of sources in Nepali which are about him. However, I found this which I presume is reliable, and says that he has 2m+ views on YouTube and has released three albums. This article, from ABC Nepal TV, confirms that claim (Google translate - "His songs are seen two million times in YouTube, and the song "You Got Me" is seen more than a million times. His songs are very popular among the Nepali youth"). This is a YouTube video showing a (longish) interview with him on Nepal TV. His music is all on ITunes, Amazon and all the other main platforms. His music videos are professionally shot. The language issue is indeed an issue, but I'm pretty sure that if a Western artist had coverage like this they wouldn't be at AfD in the first place, because WP:MUSICBIO#1 would have been said to have been met. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone can get their music published on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify etc, that's not notable. It appears that New York City Post is not a reliable source, consisting of submitted press releases to it's Gmail account. I don't believe they even have an editorial staff, and can't even find any third party articles about the New York City Post. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on them and Google searches aren't actually very helped. Seems to another unreliable source. That ABC article doesn't appear to be an article about it as much as it is a thinly disguised press release/advert for the singer's new album, it has no content. Canterbury Tail talk 12:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Perhaps weak keep - all sources seem to be in the form of press releases or some variant of self published. It's worrying that there appears to be a sock farm dedicated to publishing articles like this and interconnected ones. Non-notable publisher, and looking at their music videos, while they may be professionally produced it appears based on the comments that the viewing is largely of the attractive woman in swimsuit variety. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you think a Western musical act (or indeed any BLP) with 2m+ Youtube views and national TV interviews would be deleted? And I would point out that the "attractive woman in swimsuit" video is pretty common in rap and R&B on this side of the planet, as well. My concern is that this is being deleted purely because of the restrictions on Nepali press - a singer of similar stature in a Western country would not only be kept, but would never have appeared here in the first place. But anyway, here is his song with 856K YouTube views. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube views do not denote notability. I think after looking over WP:MUSICBIO#1 and 12 that the documentary broadcast on NTV may be the only thing that is making it notable. The other references and coverage are not notable, but the interview on NTV does show important and does meet a notability criteria, but I believe is the only thing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't denote notability, but they indicate it. You don't rack up 856K views on one video through random viewing. I think the only difference here is that local reliable sources are far more difficult to track down (not to mention to translate) and - very much like Indian media - they rely far more than Western ones on reprinting press releases and interviews etc. from other sources. Also, the "big" papers in Asia tend not to cover music too well. But, in the end, it is what it is. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this would appear to me a very unfortunate situation indeed.
- If the result of this discussion is delete, it will be a manifest demonstration on the English language Wikipedia's systemic bias about the musical artists of a small nation with only a few media sources in English .
- If the result of this discussion is keep, then the sockpuppets, single purpose only accounts, and so on will have won. (See my CSD G5 nomination of 2 April 2018 for my opinion on that date.)

It would appear to me that the least worst solution would be to send the article back into draftspace, and ask for input from editors familiar with Nepali news media. That may already have happened. Perhaps it should happen again.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the only thing we can do is to blow this up and if he's notable a neutral non-COI editor can start afresh if that seems desirable. We are not here to serve paid editors and the lack of sources is not the only issue here. The article was created by an IP address who's only edit was to create this article and then desperately asking Graeme Bartlett to review it followed by multiple IP from a range, (which has been previously noted by Mz7, to be used by the sock-farm) and users who are now blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. FITINDIA 05:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheo Sagar Ojha[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted last year. It doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC and WP:RS Watsonboy12 15:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Created by what is essentially a promotion-only account. Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 16:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clicking through the sources verifies the information in the article, and shows that there has been significant discussion about this person in all the sources except the ones about weather forcasting. Though he does appear to be a regular weather forcaster. The sources are reliable sources as far as I can tell according to WP:RS. He has published thousands of papers and written ten Geography books that are used as references in university libraries. You can see on Google Books that he's contributed to many books.[34] His concept of flood harvesting is new to the Indian government. Satisfies WP:NACADEMIC for "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" and "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" and "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." He passes WP:AUTHOR for "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" and "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Lonehexagon (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "thousands of papers in scholarly journals" ...really? seems like a stretch. Theredproject (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar says his "geography of India" has been cited only five times, and finds nothing better. To be notable through academic publications (WP:PROF#C1), prolific publication is not enough: the publications must have an impact, usually measured through citations by other authors. So he doesn't appear to pass this criterion (unless there is a large body of related research missed by GS) and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if you don't count his writing, he passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." He's discussed significantly in The Times of India [35] and India's biggest newspaper Dainik Jagran [36][37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonehexagon (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus is clear that the subject doesn't meet WP:PROF, I'm relisting to evaluate if the sources provided in the last comment support meeting GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 05:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - publishing many papers and having a few quotes in articles is not the same as being notable.--Rpclod (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and subject is not covered substantially in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India and Dainik Jagran (India's biggest newspaper) aren't reliable, independent sources? Lonehexagon (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Mason (Director General)[edit]

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

Director General of a small Channel Island Financial Services Commission. Dubious notability? Uhooep (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Keep. 2 solid refs, one from the BBC and one from Guernsey financial regulator. Szzuk (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, easily satisfying the general WP:PERSON requirements. Easy enough just to add another reference now for a little more detail, and there was an enormous amount in the references that hasn't been used - not difficult to expand once retained. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the existing references are insufficient to support biographic notability. I note the subject quoted in online sources, but nothing that indicates that the individual is particularly notable.--Rpclod (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although mentioned in reputable sources, there's no indication of encyclopaedic notability independent of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission or his former employers. Eloquai (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being competent in one's job does not convey notability. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It'd be nice if something this old had a little more participation, although I'll note that Category:Prominent JD/MBAs underwent CfD twice. At any rate, as below, no indication the grouping being listed is notable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of JD-MBAs[edit]

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

Probably thousands of notable people have this degree. No appreciable utility or notability of this list. Sandstein 07:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:LISTN as a Cross Categorization - these people are not connected to one another in any useful encyclopedic way. To be notable we need refs that discuss not the qualification, which obviously exists, but the group "People with JD-MBAs". If there is a book or documentary that discusses this group of people having any action together then I can't find it. Szzuk (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as there are likely a lot of BLP's who can be accredited with this degree. Ajf773 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Ogeil[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current article is clearly lacking bu it is just a summary of a record company bio from ~1998. Since then she, amongst other thing, founded Accademia Arcadia who were nominated for an ARIA. She has released many more albums than listed here including through ABC Classics. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Just a quick Google reveals relevant sources such as award as Woman of Influence, and several references to her role as Director of Duneira at Mount Macedon, Victoria: example, "The property is managed by director Dr Jacqueline Ogeil, who was appointed in 2010 to implement Stoneman's vision to maintain and preserve Duneira and to open it to the public." She seems notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep toured Australia, Europe and Canada. Has issued at least two albums. Passes WP:MUSICBIO.–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I was clearly too led by the promotional tone. Thanks for all the input above. Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discarding the last "keep", we are still at 2:1. Sandstein 06:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UCTV (University of Connecticut)[edit]

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

UCTV is a college tv station. The article does not meet WP:GNG. Other than a segment on Bill O'Reilly's show in 2002 (see WP:NOTNEWS), I don't see anything other than local coverage (90% of which is from the college newspaper). It also does not appear that the tv station is available anywhere except the campus cable systems. Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, UCTV had a series in 2002 that created a media storm that lasted a few weeks. Some other series have drawn outside attention. One on Zomies in 2011 ZOMBIES AT UCONN: CAMPUS AWASH WITH UNDEAD FOR COLLEGE TV SERIES DEBUTING THURSDAY; 'THE SURVIVORS'], Hartford Courant, 2011. Another in 2008-9 on Hip Hop music that was certainly shown on TV in Bridgeport - on the far side of the state from this university - and that did get coverage in the press in that county and city. The show Live! with Pete Finch, was borught to AfD at the same time this station was, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live! with Pete Finch. I think it makes sense to Redirect the UCTV program Live! with Pete Finch to UCTV and keep this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2002 media stories and the 2011 Hartford Courant article are enough to slide this past WP:GNG. Also, it's worth noting that the campus newspaper is journalistically independnent of the university, though whether that's enough to qualify it for WP:RS, I don't know. Smartyllama (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The school newspaper should not be considered independent for purposes of establishing notability, since they are the school newspaper they are going to cover anything that happens at the school, plus they have a very small audience. Also, other than the one segment by Bill O'reilly, did anyone cover the 2002 story nationally?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I googled "I Did Your Mother" but it's a very dark minefield that I don't really want to navigate through to see if I can find anything that's actually about the show. If someone more brave than me wants to, go ahead. Smartyllama (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, WP:HEY, I did add SIGCOV of the controversy surrounding that show in the major regional daily to the page. And note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live! with Pete Finch recently closed with a consensus to redirect here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again all you found were highly local sources, nothing that meets WP:AUD which is applicable here since this is an organization. Also, the result of WP:Articles for deletion/Live! with Pete Finch is irrelevant, an existence of a redirect is not a valid reason to keep an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in newspapers on the other side of the state like Connecticut Post, and Fairfield County Weekly is not "highly local". Moreover, the Hartford Courant is the large statewide daily, not the newspaper in the college town. Other sources turn up in quick searches, like a discussion of one aspect of the station's fundraising in Student Television in America: Channels of Change. a 1998 book published by Iowa State University Press. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)@E.M.Gregory: I tweaked your post a bit just so that its more consistent with the type of formatting used in AfDs like this. (Not sure why you linked to the article Keep). Also, please be careful to only WP:!VOTE once in a discussion. You already seem to have !voted keep above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that was careless. I had not bolded that keep, and didn't spot it when I revisited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Doncram (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? see WP:VOTE (unsigned by User:Rusf10)

Because it is obvious. See the discussion above. --Doncram (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically as long as the article is kept, any reason is a good reason, aka WP:ILIKEIT--Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Rathod[edit]

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

I cannot find even non-trivial coverage in independent RS therefore fails basis GNG. Saqib (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I stand by my PROD rationale that Rathod is a non-notable minor actor and fails WP:NACTOR. No evidence of roles as "music director" either. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quickly as possible. Classic Vanispamcruftisement. Article is without reliable sources.104.163.158.37 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology. And also African University of Science and Technology. Up to editors to decide how to call the resulting article. Sandstein 06:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela Institution[edit]

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

No working references. May not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - several notable Ghits. Just seems to be a case of link/cite rot. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - double-checked and it seems that the Ghits I got were for the organization in the "See Also" section of the article. Gonna go for delete due to this. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Rathfelder, have you done a WP:BEFORE search? You don't mentione one. If not, "no working references" is not a valid policy-based reason to delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grand merge It clearly exists (that wasn't so hard - home page here) but it's rather low-key (although funded to the tune of R 10 m). It seems to be the governing/establishing body of Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology and African University of Science and Technology, both of which articles, you may notice, are in a similarly undersourced state. I'd suggest merging the lot together in this article, which may yield one acceptable unit. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I found was a Facebook page. The grand merger seems a very sensible plan. Rathfelder (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Elmidae's suggestion seems a wise idea. The combined bit would still be distinctly weak (source wise), but certainly in a better status regarding notability and a reasonable chance to continue. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Uddin (politician)[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. never elected to parliament. Saqib (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG (the only coverage available is trivial in nature, substantially made up of "passing mentions", and related to a single event - the subject's single general election candidacy. The only independent coverage, where the subject is the primary subject, is a piece in a non-national news outlet - of the type that was likely applied to all candidates). Also fails WP:POLITICIAN (has never held elected office. Of any kind. Got about 100 votes [~0.2%] from an electorate of nearly 100,000 [38]). Falls substantially outside project scope. Guliolopez (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Failed election candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Spleodrach (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Came last in an election, never held a position in office, fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long shot. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates for office are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with opinions voiced above. Finnegas (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Jaiswal[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines ACTOR and even basic GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. apparently only played a minor role in a single film. Saqib (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NYA just a single minor part with only passing mentions in references - not enough yet to pass WP:NOTE. KylieTastic (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:NACTOR failure do to a lack of coverage, hardly surprising the actor in question made their debut in 2018. Probable WP:ANYBIO failure as well.--SamHolt6 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hiltner Publications[edit]

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

No entry exists on Anne Hiltner.. why do we need this list then. Saqib (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page about Anne Hiltner is currently being made and it seemed better to create a separate page for her publications rather than list them in the article itself. That page will be up by the end of the month. mem272 17:29, 7 April 2018

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE plus the fact the author does not have an article, therefore no notability has been established. Ajf773 (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability most certainly is established. Anne Hiltner (assuming she is P. Anne Hiltner as this article says) has a GScholar h-index of 47, including papers with 501, 270 and 235 cites and thirteen papers with 100+ cites. That satisfies WP:PROF. Move the article to Anne Hiltner and rewrite as a bio (@ User:Mem272: I suggest you carry out the move and rewrite asap). There is nothing wrong with having a bibliography in her article either. James500 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The creator has been working on a bio of Hiltner (who certainly seems notable) in a sandbox (Special:Contributions/Mem272). This is a new user who needs a bit of coaching. Wikipedia usually includes publications on the main bio page, but doesn't include complete lists of publications for scientists, even though I am not sure why it would be a problem. (Why do we have complete role lists for actors and not complete publication lists for academics? It would probably be a good service to readers). In any case, if a selection needs to be made, the best person to consult is probably DGG (talk · contribs) who is a science librarian. --Hegvald (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCV. Hiltner probably passes WP:PROF (we don't have to decide that for this AfD) but for most academics we do not catalogue all non-book-length publications; a small set of selected publications suffices. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual will clearly meet WP:PROF, and the editor has already made a usable draft as User:Mem272/sandbox. The draft will need some editing, but it's good enough for mainspace as it is. We do not include complete lists of publications, and the draft already includes selected publications, so there is no use for this version. Mem272, would you like me to move your userspace draft now and adjust it to our usual format? It will be quite easy for me--I've done this sort of rewriting for thousands of scientist bios. We do not include puffery like "one of her great achievements", and there's a rule WP:NOTCV, which we interpret it to mean that complete lists of publications are not acceptable unless the person is world-famous--see WP:EINSTEIN. For the article to stay in WP, you'll need to accept our practices. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hiltner herself passes WP:PROF#C5 for holding a named chair (the Herbert Henry Dow professorship [39]), and her citation record meets WP:PROF#C1, it looks to me. But as David Eppstein says, we generally don't catalogue all the articles that a researcher has published. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that there are not generally publication lists (which is odd, as said above since we do it for actors with film credits and other similar lists). The list I published was certainly not a full list of publications, as she has over 300. However, I would like assistance in determining which publications should be included. In my sandbox page on Anne Hiltner, I have a list of just some publications for which she was the primary author and also the full list from this second page in case it got deleted. I am a new user and would appreciate help to make her main page a decent entry. I am fine with this page being deleted since it does not fit guidelines. mem272 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, intended for the general public. It's not a database of journal articles, though the allied project Wikidata may possibly be developing one). It's not a collection of CVs. It's not a department web site with all the faculty showing off their latest work to compete for the best graduate students. It's not a scientific memorial article. It's not a celebration of a person's career. It gives the information someone in the general public who has heard his name might like to do, which is to find out what he is particularly known for.

There are no fixed rules, but there are standard practices. . When I write or revise a scientific bio I include all the published books, and the 5 ± 2 most influential papers. Sometimes there's a good third party source for that, but almost always we need to use the standard surrogate for influential, most highly cited. Often there's an appropriate way to mention a few more, such as if one of is cited in a major award of international standing.

We don't expect new authors to get everything right, and nobody OWNs a article, which is why after you've finished, anyone can edit, and a number of people generally do so.

Other fields vary. For academics in the humanities, we normally just include the books. For literary authors, it depends on their importance, but we sometimes do try to include all the published works, depending on importance and genre. For filmographies, we do include all films. For discographies, we are often extensive, but not usually truly complete.

Some articles here do not follow the rules. Back 10 years ago, lots of things were done that are now unacceptable, and it will take a very long time to fix them. Sometimes a fan group insist onf writing in violation of the usual practice, and if there are enough of then, sometimes people here let them rather than fight with devout fans. Nobody can actually enforce a rule about content, so odd things happen. The only fair advice Ic an give, is to follow the mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 9 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 Moot. Nominator blocked as sock, and no other opinion on the merits. Can be renominated by any non-sock editor. Sandstein 11:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis[edit]

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

WP:TOOMUCH warns against excessive detail, etc. and directs to WP:LISTCRUFT which deprecates "lists for sake of having a list". All of these lists fail because the subjects do not meet the agreed qualification of 25 centuries minimum imposed to prevent flooding of the site with such lists. See Template:International cricket centuries setting the standard of 25 centuries minimum. Protea caffra (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:TOOMUCH does not say anything about lists, so to put such a statement in quotes is disingenuous. On the other hand WP:LISTCRUFT says :

"The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article."

so if the article does get deleted the content should be merged back into Faf Du Plessis.

There is nothing in the template linked that shows that there is any consensus that a List article is not created until a player reaches 25 centuries, only that they are not added to that template until such a level is reached. Spike 'em (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin

The user that started this discussion has now "retired" after suspicions were raised about them being a sock of a blocked user. I'd recommend this is closed, with no objection to another user raising this at AfD, if they feel strongly about it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the creator of the AfD has been blocked as a sock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maggard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has improved since the first nomination: he's still only marginally notable, at best, for a false claim to have played Ronald McDonald. First nomination resolved this to a redirect, which keeps getting replaced by the old text. Frankly, I think it should go away entirely. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not everyone who makes false claims about their career becomes notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one minor non-event does not support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:04, 7 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 06:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meg: Hell's Aquarium[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, this page is ineligible for deletion because it could be merged and redirected to the author of this book, Steve Alten, whose notability the nominator does not question. Furthermore, a search for "Steve Alten"+meg in GNews brings up coverage in more than 320 sources, suggesting that this series of books is most probably notable. Apparently, there is going to be a film of these books with Jason Statham in it. I am under the impression he is fairly well known. A claim that there is "no coverage in reliable sources" certainly needs a great deal of further explanation when there are obviously hundreds of news sources. I also note that most of the cites to book reviews etc were recently deleted from Alten's article for no good reason that I can see. James500 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to, or add to the article, significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has existed for twelve years and currently cites no coverage from reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references are provided, let alone any authoritative references to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:05, 7 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 06:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meg: Primal Waters[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, this page is ineligible for deletion because it could be merged and redirected to the author of this book, Steve Alten, whose notability the nominator does not question. Furthermore, a search for "Steve Alten"+meg in GNews brings up coverage in more than 320 sources, suggesting that this series of books is most probably notable. Apparently, there is going to be a film of these books with Jason Statham in it. I am under the impression he is fairly well known. A claim that there is "no coverage in reliable sources" certainly needs a great deal of further explanation when there are obviously hundreds of news sources. I also note that most of the cites to book reviews etc were recently deleted from Alten's article for no good reason that I can see. James500 (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to, or add to the article, significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has existed for twelve years and currently cites no coverage from reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the Meg series in 320+ sources in GNews. Whether any sources are presently cited in the article is irrelevant, see WP:ASSERTN and WP:BEFORE. In any event, a search for "meg primal waters" in the main Google search brings up a review in Publishers Weekly, who are certainly reliable. I can't comment on reviews in writerswrite or allreaders as I do not know who they are. I am not going to attempt an exhaustive list of all reviews, since it is your job to look for sources with a search engine, not mine. This is all academic as we don't delete mergeable content or redirectable pages anyway. James500 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first two pages of those results, and none of them are about this book. Here's a more relevant search related to this article; it turns up two results with zero coverage of this book. I have looked for sources and found nothing that comes close to helping this article meet WP:GNG. A redirect to the author's page would be fine with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no authoritative references are provided to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:07, 7 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. —SpacemanSpiff 00:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Vasudevan (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Sources are mostly interviews, profiles and mentions, fails WP:GNG. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a handful of press releases and a few peripheral references to not support the individual's notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:10, 7 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 06:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Göstl[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found: link. No de.Wiki article. Topped out as a private; did not hold a significant command. Much of the content is sourced to a dubious website: http://www.angelfire.com/nj/ww2/ssrecipients.html The bibliography includes a fringe publication by Huß, Jürgen (2009). Ritterkreuzträger im Mannschaftsstand 1941 - 1945. Zweibrücken: VDM Nickel.

Please also see a note at MilHist Talk Archives. In summary, per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles on these recipients were redirected to alphabetical lists. In this particular case, the article has been restored from a redirect, but still lacks notability / reliable sources. I don't believe that such sources exist, either in German or English, hence this AfD. For a recently-closed AfD on a Knight's Cross recipient, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnulf Abele. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to locked redirect - We seem to be collecting these recently.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a soldier and being awarded a medal is not sufficient to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Morse[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this does not make any claim of preexisting notability at all -- all of the content outside of her campaign-related coverage itself is referenced to primary sources, not to any evidence that she was getting media coverage for any of it at the time. And the campaign-related coverage itself does not make a candidate notable just for being a candidate, either — it just makes her a WP:BLP1E, and because every candidate in every election always gets some campaign-related coverage, the existence of that coverage does not automatically get a candidate over WP:GNG all by itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat -- but nothing stated or sourced here entitles her to already have a Wikipedia article today.
Also, this is a conflict of interest, as the page creator openly declares themself as a volunteer for the subject's campaign on their own userpage. As always, even if a person does clear our notability standards they or their staff still don't get to create the article themselves. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for candidates to place their campaign brouchures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - running for a position is not sufficient to support WP:NPOL criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:TOOSOON (if she wins), and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 8 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. czar 14:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Victor[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer. Running for office is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created Marc Victor's page is not just because he ran for office but also because he is a lawyer that you will see in literally a lot of popular cases that are highly covered by the media and also for his views related to Gun laws.

In fact, he has been recently involved in representing someone related to the Las Vegas shooting.

He also has a few controversies and updates that I will be soon posting on his page (Hopefully today) but haven't had much time to do wiki stuff because of personal life reasons I rather not say here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesuitsharvey (talk • contribs) 05:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject is an attorney who has handled some cases. Not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local lawyer. SportingFlyer talk 20:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, has not made any significant contribution in field of the law. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 8 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. czar 14:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thompson Foundation[edit]

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

Not a notable organization. The refs are largely about the founder, I'm unsure of his notability due to his common name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are enough sources to show WP:GNG of something, whether foundation founder or founded foundation. This also included Angela too at one point in the past. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation is notable in North Texas, spending quite a bit in the community every year. We are in the process of updating the page to reflect the current goals/mission/distributions of the foundation. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holytouch (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being listed in directories with many other foundations is insufficient to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 8 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 06:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Two-Hawks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is nothing but an ad for Mr. Two-Hawks and all "controversial items" have been removed by his agent multiple times and will likely be removed again. see talk page and history NWWT (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you provide diffs where the material is removed? Also, does this breach WP:BLP? I'm not sure how I'd !vote, but I agree that it would be better to come to a consensus this time around. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Smmurphy see contributions for User:CSRstaff, which is entirely edits to this page, such as Special:Diff/731414466/732407502 RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CSRstaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <- this should help. There have been other accounts that are most likely socks, as well. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he passes WP:NMUSIC category 8 as he was nominated for a Grammy Award for his album Wind Songs as confirmed by a reliable source here. If his agent is causing problems he should be reported at WP:COIN and will most probably be blocked. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete working on this article over the years, my opinion is that the subject is not notable. Much puffery appears to have been added by the subject or their partner/agent, and then been removed. There has also been sockpuppetry in this area. Initially there was unearned notability because sourcing for a whole other individual, of the same name, was erroneously included. Much of the publications and videos seem self-published, and many of the appearances seem to be trade show promotional gigs or the like. So much of what has been added has been COI that it's been hard to sort through. The only reason to keep would be to disambig this person from similarly-named individuals, and to keep some of the fact-checking intact in that area; but that is not actually the purpose of the 'pedia. If we are going on pure notability, and keeping the content on the pedia honest, I lean towards delete. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only independent reference that is not just a music directory is a relatively small paper. Insufficient to support WP:MUSICBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've changed to delete. Looking over the recent deletions and additions, I see the content about the hoaxes perpetrated by this individual have been deleted by his manager, and stayed deleted. The hoaxes were actually better-known than his other work, as far as I could tell. The recently-added source that confirms his birth name also has errors, like his false claims of Native heritage, so, while useful for the name, it also adds false info to the 'pedia. This is just too full of misinformation to allow on the 'pedia, and always will be. It needs to go. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Novant Health#Hospitals. czar 14:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center[edit]

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

non notable hospital, nothing exceptional. About haft he present article content is devoted to claims of placement on a list. For example, in the lede, there are 475 such "Magnet" hospital.The others too are as one of many hospitals, and only given for one particular year. There is not a single substantial reference that meets the criteria for organizations. O troed tp merge to the hospital system, but it was reverted. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to copyedit your comment for clarity. I reverted article in an attempt to flesh it out. Notable in that it is a level 2 trauma center with pediatrics. If no consensus for notability, I would see a case for a Merge to Novant Health. Previously when this article was "merged" with the parent organization's article, there was no actual information or citations merged. -TG 06:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few passing mentions[40][41][42] but not significant for establishing notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a pretty big hospital with a helicopter pad, and has a level III trauma center designation. Nearby Carolinas Medical Center-Mercy is a smaller hospital, has its own article, and isn't flagged. It is the 2nd largest hospital in the region in terms of beds available.Acnetj (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Novant Health - having a helicopter pad and trauma center designation is not the same as notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - then what would be considered notable by your standard? My definition that it is notable because the hospital is a community infrastructure. The infrastructure existed and functioned as intended prior to Novant Health ownership and will like continue to do so if Novant Health make other corporate decisions. A large hospital is not like a local Starbucks or McDonald's where the local branch is not notable but the corporation behind it is notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Novant Health#Hospitals. czar 14:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novant Health Rowan Medical Center[edit]

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

No evidence for the notability of this fairly small hospital. I tried to redirect to the parent, but was reverted. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted in an attempt to flesh out the article. If no consensus for notability of its own accord, I would see a case for a Merge (preferred) or a redirect -TG 04:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Novant Health Rowan Medical Center~~ Novant Health, which only has passing mentions. Source searches are providing mostly local news. A merge will improve the suggested merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the same article? Natureium (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my !vote/copy-paste error above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Novant Health.--Rpclod (talk) 18:28, 7 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 06:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy Lyall[edit]

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

Clancy Lyall was an NCO in the U.S. Army who served in World War II, the Korean War, and Indochina/Vietnam. He served honorably but his highest rank (master sergeant) and highest award (Bronze Star) do not qualify him for an article under WP:SOLDIER. He might pass WP:GNG for having escaped from Dien Bien Phu, where he was assigned as an adviser and intelligence gatherer for the French before it fell to the Việt Minh, but the only source I can connect to the event is Lyall himself. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 7 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 06:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Fitzwater[edit]

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

County politician, sourcing is local and routine. Nothing that meets WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidently the scouurge of overcoverage of excessively local politicians has moved beyond New Jersey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It always did. New Jersey just happens to be where somebody has been undertaking an active cleanup project these past few weeks to comprehensively address the issue, but we have always had a problem with overcoverage of local city and town and county councillors and small town mayors and school board trustees everywhere, never just in New Jersey alone. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Subject is widely discussed outside the role that she has on the County council. All of the other members of the Council have similar entries, though none have a record outside of govenment that is extensive. The creation of her page followed a lengthy discussion, some of which is in Talk:Kirby Delauter and the page's discussion. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Subject is widely discussed outside the role that she has on the County council." Not really, the NEA website is not an independent source, nor is "vice chair of the organization's arts caucus" a notable position. All other sources whether about her as a politician or otherwise (there's only one [43]) are from local newspapers. 2. All of the other members of the Council have similar entries, though none have a record outside of govenment that is extensive. See WP:OSE and my counterpoint would be maybe other stuff shouldn't exist. 3. The creation of her page followed a lengthy discussion, some of which is in Talk:Kirby Delauter and the page's discussion. Again, OSE, but the Kirby Delauter article is clearly of question notability too since its deletion discussion ended in "no consensus".--Rusf10 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you mischaracterizing previous discussions and the contents of this article? If you want to start a guidelines-based discussion, would you please read WP:POLITICIAN? There's a presumption of notability for membership on the council. Even if there weren't, her work as activist of the year, stance for refusing to take an oath on the bible, and other sources not in the article are more than adequate to prove notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such presumption in WP:POLITICIAN. It says "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"." She has not met the criteria because the coverage is local and routine. Every politician everywhere get coverage in the local newspaper.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you misrepresenting guidelines? "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" If Fitzwater were a candidate for office you might have a legitimate concern that she doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. She holds elected office and represents tens of thousands of people. The entirety of the Council is notable. Would you please read WP:COMMON and apply it here.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond to my question above. Again: Why are you misrepresenting the contents of this article and its subject. Did you really write All other sources whether about her as a politician or otherwise are from local newspapers I would rather make a meaningful mainspace contribution than review every one of the 19 references. You could simply look at reference 19 about her work as an activist. Or if you really wanted to be helpful, you could look at what national coverage there is that you could add to strengthen the article. For example, this article in the Washington Post about her legislative efforts or this one, also in the WP, a national newpaper.02:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting the article, you are. And you're also misrepresenting the guideline at the same time as you are quoting it. She is neither an international, national, sub-national officeholder, nor a member of a state legislature, so notability is NOT assumed under the guideline. The coverage in the Washington Post is not indepth coverage of her, it is coverage of a bill under consideration by the council. She is not the subject of those articles, they just mention her. And reference #19 is an article from a small town newspaper which proves my point.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same article here? Did you read, or do you just not care to acknowledge her role in the State Representative Assembly. Its right there in the sixth sentence. There's your statewide office. Nor are you correctly interpreting WP:POLITICIAN, it says nothing to confirm your perception that the Frederick County Council is somehow not notable, just that Statewide legislatures are presumed notable. Is the Washington Post a small town newspaper? You do realize that just because this is a talk page you need to justify your assertions. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're way off here, I don't see how you possibly could have read WP:POLITICIAN the way you did. She was a " union delegate to the Maryland State Education Associations’s State Representative Assembly". That's not even an elected office! You're trying to tell me that a union delegate qualifies as a statewide officeholder under NPOL #1?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, every single reason you have for this nomination is baseless. When are you going to withdraw this so that I and other editors can make meaningful contributions? She holds significant elected office at the local and state level. She has abundant coverage in national, state, and local press. Thanks.Bangabandhu (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Union delegate to the Maryland State Education Associations’s State Representative Assembly" is not a role that passes WP:NPOL. It is not the state legislature, but merely the internal governance body of a non-profit organization, so no, being a delegate to its convention is not a notable state-level office for the purposes of NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that I'm not claiming notability on the basis of that position alone, don't you? I'm saying that its one of many elements. Even if you raise an objection to every single source (and I'm sure you could, if you're creative) you really should look at the totality of all the sourcing, citing, previous accomplishments and record. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and not otherwise notable under WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how did you arrive at that determination? Its not true, even on the basis of the abundant existing sources. But the current sourcing is not even the entirety of the coverage about her. Please see this article or this one which are just a couple of what else is out there. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have presumptive notability under WP:POLITICIAN (hasn't held a national or statewide political position, and hasn't received major independent political coverage) and isn't otherwise notable outside of her political career (all articles are local articles except for her activist of the year award, which isn't enough.) Classic case of local political cruft. SportingFlyer talk 06:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, those additional articles you posted are not about her, but are instead about the council. SportingFlyer talk 06:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're right that there's no presumption of notability for her membership on the Council, there's no presumption of non-notability for her Council role, either. If you want to impugn any single source I'm sure you can do that. Of course the articles are about her council, advocacy, and leadership work. What are you looking for, a Celebrity Buzz-type article about her private life? You'd probably dismiss that as being non-newsworthy. Thee fact of the matter is she has received abundant attention in national publications including the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, NPR,USA Today among others. Bangabandhu (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be indepth coverage, not just a namecheck. If any of those publications wrote an entire article about her that would be fine (and it does not have to be about her personal life).--Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is really unhelpful. What is this profile entirely dedicated to her? Answer: one of many more articles about her, which you might be aware of if you did research rather than just nominated articles for deletion. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately after doing a deep search I wasn't able to find any sources which discuss her outside of her role as a local politician, so I'll maintain my delete vote. SportingFlyer talk 02:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A local magazine that no one has ever heard of, you're proving my point for me.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What point are we proving here? If its that you're arbitrary and should check yourself, you're right. Read WP:GNG. It doesn't require anything at the national or even regional level, brah. Source is legit even if its not your choice read.Bangabandhu (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a county commissioner, that is, a member of an elected body of 5 commissioners who select and hire a professional county executive - this makes her the equivalent of a member of the city council of a city of 250,000 with a Council–manager government. Problem is, coverage appears to be routine. So I took a close look at the sources cited by Bangabandhu just above. Frederick is a D.C. suburb, and the WaPo coverage is local (in the "Maryland Politics" section,) The USA Today article is in the delmarvatoday edition of the paper. Ditto for the regional daily Baltimore Sun. And the radio story ran on WYPR, Baltimore Public Radio (regional). All four cover her role in articles covering a specific policy debate, and all are regional. What I would need to WP:HEYMANN see to rate her notable, is non-campaign profiles or feature stories focused on Fitzwater, or inclusions of her in media outside the region. She is very active, so it is probably merely WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is one of the more interesting and well-considered comments in this thread you seem to believe that there is something fundamentally non-notable about her role on the County council. There's enough content in here - beginning with her award as teacher and activist of the year - that she could have a page in her own right separate from her position. But suddenly she doesn't deserve a page when she gets a position below the state level in government. Imagine if she won the Nobel Prize for her stand against taking the oath on the bible. You'd probably say dismiss that, because it was something she did in her role as a County Councilmember. And what is the threshold for coverage, anyway? Show me something that says national coverage is required? She has more cites than most state politicians, yet of course none of that counts, because she's got the Scarlet Letter of County Council service. You dismiss all the national coverage because you say that its in a regional section, essentially creating a new requirement for notability, when really its just because nothing can shake the tarnish of the County Council in your mind. Any reasonable assessment would just be impartial to what level of government she serves. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, no, she does not have "more cites than most state politicians", either — of the 19 citations here, fully half are primary sources that cannot support notability in a Wikipedia article at all, and the half that are actual media coverage are purely local media coverage of the type and volume that's merely expected to exist for all city councillors everywhere. Any reasonable assessment would not just be "impartial" to what level of government she serves — we have a rule on here that the lowest level of government that entitles a person to have an article is the state legislature, and that the only way to get a person at the local level of government in the door is to demonstrate evidence that she's substantially more notable than the vast majority of other people at that same level of government. A county councillor does not get in the door just by showing six or seven cites to her own local media, because there isn't a single county councillor anywhere on the planet who couldn't show six or seven cites to her own local media — there is only one way to make a county councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and that is to show a lot more than most other county councillors could also show: a much higher number of citations, a much wider geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, deeper citations (e.g. somebody wrote and published an entire book about her), etc. "Exactly the same as every other county councillor could also show" is not good enough. Show a lot more than every other county councillor could also show. No ifs, no ands, no buts: show more than most other county councillors could show, or it goes. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If only you were as considerate in your response as you are verbose. Of course, 19 sources isn't even the beginning of what's available. There are more than half a dozen cited in this thread that aren't in the article. Why wouldn't you consider those in your count? Do you really need me to collect them all in one place - or are you going to accuse me of WP:POINT. Are you sure that if we start comparing cites counts we're not violating WP:OSE? Bangabandhu (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The county level of government is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass for every county councillor who exists — it can occasionally be valid grounds for inclusion if and when a county councillor can be reliably sourced to a volume and depth and range of coverage that marks her out as significantly more notable than the norm, but it is not an automatic notability freebie that automatically gets every county councillor in the door just for existing as a county councillor. But the referencing here is not getting her over WP:GNG in lieu, because half of it is primary sourcing that does not assist notability at all, and the half that is reliable sourcing is purely local reliable sourcing of the type and volume that's merely expected to exist for all county councillors in their own local media. (And as for Bangabandhu's new sources above, those are still local coverage in the Baltimore-DC corridor, not national coverage that makes her special — even the "NPR" citation is not to NPR's national news division, but to its local station in Baltimore.) This simply is not cutting it in terms of making a county councillor notable enough for inclusion.
And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so the fact that some or all of her other colleagues have articles too isn't a reason why this has to be kept — they may need to be deleted as well, and/or may have a stronger claim to surpassing the "more notable than the norm for county councillors" condition. (For example, I've heard of Kirby Delauter often enough to recognize his name on sight even though I'm Canadian, but even he still may just be a WP:BLP1E rather than a subject who's actually earned a genuinely substantive claim to being more notable than his colleagues.) So each of those articles will need to be individually reviewed for whether they're actually meeting our requirements or not, but none of them are entitled to articles just for existing as county councillors either, so they do not constitute evidence that Fitzwater has to be kept. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but did you bother to read any of the comments in this thread? No one is claiming that she has notability solely on the basis of her position on the Council. The issue is that she has the notability scales tipped against her because she's on the Council. If this were a fair hearing she wouldn't have to go to these lengths and no one would be dismissing her ample cites. What's more, your comments about Delauter further highlights what has been the elephant in the room throughout this discussion: that she is the sole female seat holder under 40 in all of Maryland politics. Was she really nominated at random for deletion by editors (who I think are) entirely male? When there are many other pages about male seat holders, all with a fraction of the cites? But its okay you can just remain oblivious and claim WP:OSE. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did bother to read all the comments in this thread — and I hate to break it to you, but I'm the most opposite of "oblivious" person you're ever going to meet in your lifetime. And incidentally, holders of generally non-notable offices, like county councillors, do not get automatic inclusion freebies just because of their age, race, gender or sexuality either, so being "the sole female seat holder under 40 in all of Maryland politics" is irrelevant to her notability or lack thereof — and that's not even what the article says, which is just that she's the only woman under 40 serving on a county council. And on top of that, we'll never mind that the Maryland Reporter is a WordPress blog, which means it's an unreliable source that never counts as acceptable support for notability under any circumstances: even if being female was an automatic notability freebie that automatically made a county councillor special, which it isn't, you still couldn't use that as a source for anything in the article. The problem isn't that county council is somehow tipping the notability scales unfairly against her notability for other things — you have yet to actually demonstrate that she has any other things that count as notability claims at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're making it worse. You would not go to such lengths to indict that source you and others weren't on this anti-Councilmember and possibly anti-woman jihad. Why didn't you just bother to find the original source mentioned in the post that confirms her unique status as one of the only under 40 elected officials at that level? Answer: because its easier to insist on this misinterpretation of WP:POLITICIAN.Bangabandhu (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it's true or not that she's one of the only under 40 elected officials in the state, what is true is that being under 40 is not a notability claim that automatically makes a county councillor a special case, over and above other county councillors, in and of itself. I am not misinterpreting WP:POLITICIAN at all, nor am I on any sort of "jihad" — county councillors are quite simply not automatically notable just for existing, and the inclusion test for actually getting a county councillor in the door is that they can be shown as significantly more notable than most other county councillors, by virtue of being able to show more coverage, wider coverage and/or deeper coverage than every county councillor always gets in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that if the sole claim for notability were that distinction it would be a weak case. But that isn't the only claim to notability. She's got complete profiles dedicated to her. She's proposed and passed legislation that's been covered in newspapers with a national reach. She's taken important stands like refusing to swear on the bible. She's held a statewide position and won award. Again, you can indict any one of these accomplishments or the source and individually they are inadequate. But please look at it as a whole. Unfortunately it is not as simple as a statewide politician who receives automatic notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the only "complete profiles dedicated to her" shown here are in local media — which is once again a thing that every county councillor everywhere could always show, not a thing that inherently makes this county councillor a special case over and above most others.

Secondly, the localness or non-localness of media coverage is not determined by a publication's reach, but by its point of origin — if her notability claim exists within the local coverage area of the Washington Post, then the fact that WaPo has a wider-than-just-local distribution is not enough to make her special. By comparison, a county councillor in the New York City metro wouldn't automatically get a free pass over NPOL just because their routine local coverage happened to be located in The New York Times either. If publications away from the local market, such as the Chicago Sun-Times or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, were covering a county councillor in the NYC or Washington metros, then there'd be a case for notability, but the extralocal distribution of the New York Times or the Washington Post does not reify into "nationalized" coverage for the purposes of making their local coverage of local county councillors more notable than the equivalent local coverage of local politics in every other newspaper.

Thirdly, refusing to swear on the Bible is not an important stand that makes a county councillor notable in and of itself.

Fourthly, this article does not state that she held any statewide position that would count as a pass of WP:NPOL #1 — that refers to the state legislature, not to the boards of directors of NGOs — and the only award that she's stated as having won is not shown or sourced as a notable award that would make a person notable for winning it (which is not a thing that every award automatically does just because it exists — an award's ability to make a person notable for winning it is exactly coterminous with the extent to which the media report the granting of that award as news.)

I am looking at it as a whole — the whole simply doesn't cut the mustard at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the core of the disagreement here is that you think that notability is a yes/no on every point rather than a cumulative score across lots of different areas. You're right that each one of these on their own is totally inadequate to prove notability. In their entirety, they add up to something immense and are more than adequate. Do you really think that every local politician has this level of coverage? 22:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that every local politician has the level of coverage actually shown here — I know for a fact that it's true that every local politician has the level of coverage shown here. And no, the claims don't add up to something immense and more than adequate in toto. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the amount of media coverage shown here were enough in and of itself to get a county councillor over GNG and thus exempt her from having to pass NPOL, then every county councillor on the planet would always get over GNG and there would never be any such thing as a non-notable county councillor anymore. We have an established consensus, however, that county councillors are not all automatically notable just for existing as county councillors — so the key to making a county councillor notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "the same coverage that every county councillor could also show", but "significantly more coverage than most other city councillors could also show". Which is not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is wrong. Not all Councilmembers have the same amount of media coverage. Evidence: when Fitzwater was first elected there was a fraction of this coverage about her. She was not notable then. Now there's an extensive set of sources. She is notable, and not like "all" Councilmembers, especially those just starting out. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's not an "extensive" set of sources here that goes above and beyond the norm — every county councillor everywhere could always show as much or more sourceability as this. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and EM Gregory. There is an expectation that county elected officials receive significant national or international coverage to meet WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you more interested in blindly following what Bearcat says than what guidelines dictate? WP:NPOL says nothing about any requirements for national or international coverage. It expects extensive coverage, which has been amply demonstrated. Since Bearcat seems too oblivious just unwilling to state it clearly, the requirement is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" meaning "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Do you need me to paste the feature articles and extensive coverage here? They're listed above. Bangabandhu (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good time to review WP:BLUD. SportingFlyer talk 06:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I apologize if I was overly emphatic in this discussion. But editors are on the verge of harming readership and the project's mission. I feel strongly about this. Also you have put me in a difficult position. If I invest hours of more time to format dozens of cites I then risk losing even more if this isn't resolved the way that it should be. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bangabandhu this isn't personal, it's just that we have rules and guidelines of the sort necessary to any complex system, in fact, I do hope that you have taken a careful look at WP:POLOUTCOMES.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that page before. It's critical that you not mistake that for guidelines. Those are not guidelines. They're previous outcomes, some of which may have been mistaken. If you consider them guidelines they're self reinforcing and encourage a herd mentality where everyone makes the same mistake over and over again. I see that the editor who proposed this AfD is trying to make those guidelines with respect to local politicians. I am going to weigh in on that, it is outrageous. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my reason to delete this article is based off of WP:POLITICIAN, not WP:POLOUTCOMES. County politicians are not given auto-notability under WP:POLITICIAN. You have failed to demonstrate that the subject received in-depth coverage beyond a couple local newspaper articles. Then you made an argument that she should get notability because of her gender (find that in the guidelines) and alleged that myself and others voting delete were sexist which is basically a personal attack, see WP:AFDEQ. The only reason this received more than one keep vote is you WP:CANVASSED it here [44] which is also against the rules.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't directed to you, but since you wrote I'll respond. You said a few sources were unacceptable because they were from a local publication. WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about requirements for national coverage, only significant coverage, which has been demonstrated. Its WP:POLOUTCOMES, which is not a guideline, that mentions national coverage. Editors' move to target the sole female office holder for deletion is sexist. That's not a personal attack. It's not canvassing to contact previous editors who have made significant contributions to an article, please familiarize yourself with guidelines before you cite them. If I were to really canvass I'd have legions of support on this page as its right now only reviewed by the insular group editors who frequent this page.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ONLYESSAY. Precedents defined at WP:POLOUTCOMES are binding in the absence of a compelling reason to make a special exception to them — which you haven't shown. The path to notability for a local county councillor, the question of whether the coverage is "significant" enough to get a person over NPOL #2, is defined by (a) coverage that nationalizes well beyond what could merely be expected to exist for any county councillor anywhere, (b) coverage that drills down much deeper than the norm, such as the person attaining such iconic status in their own local area that they've actually had one or more book-length biographies published about them, or (c) coverage that volumizes well beyond the norm, such as the ability to cite dozens of pieces of media coverage and not just eight or nine. The simple fact that some local media coverage exists is not enough to get a county councillor over NPOL #2 in and of itself, because there is no county councillor anywhere for whom some local media coverage doesn't exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has runned in the council election. Article is well sourced. Has recieved extensive coverage by reliable third party sources. WP:GNG applies here whether people like it or not.BabbaQ (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Running in a county council election is not a notability claim in and of itself — the state legislature is the lowest level of office at which the fact of holding office constitutes an automatic notability pass. At the county level, what has to be shown to make a person notable is a depth and breadth and range of coverage that goes significantly above and beyond what every county councillor could always show, and the sourcing here isn't doing that. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No exceptional coverage. Sources cited are all local & routine to the area, on par with what any official would receive in a local paper. Feel free to import this content (with attribution) to another wiki that focuses on local content. But Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. fwiw, I don't see the case for Kirby Delauter either. czar 14:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. People may recreate the article or redirect it if they can find good sources specifically about this concept, seeing as the lack of sources is the main reason proffered for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four Benevolent Animals[edit]

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

Article does not include anything not in Four Symbols (China)‎, and no source is given for the "Four Benevolent Animals" name Imaginatorium (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Four Symbols (China). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as they are not the same thing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like they are not the same? Even if Phoenix = Vermilion Bird, a Qilin is certainly not White Tiger. If we were to merge, I would merge to Four Holy Beasts, the only difference being Chinese dragon vs. Vietnamese dragon, which look exactly the same and clearly share the same origin. Timmyshin (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess I don't know a whole lot about this topic, but the ja.wiki links for both articles seem to imply they are different, but related, concepts. I would say put this AFD on hold until someone can definitively figure out if 四霊 and 四象/四神 are different things or not. I wouldn't put it past someone on English Wikipedia translating a foreign-language Wikipedia article without checking whether something else we already had an article on the same thing, so I don't actually want to say which it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little research, and they are definitely different, because each concept is mentioned in a different chapter in the Book of Rites. ([45]: 前朱鳥而後玄武,左青龍而右白虎. [46]: 麟、鳳、龜、龍，謂之四靈.) But the Vietnamese Four Holy Beasts should merge with this article. Timmyshin (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that when you are dealing with stuff with no empirical basis, there are lots of varying values of "different". And even if there are distinctions, these can still be better dealt with in a single unified article. If a person finds one article when looking for a set of four(*) animals, it helps to know that there are various different sets. (*And remembering that in these circles, "four" quite often has the value five.) If the titles were in Chinese, then it would at least be possible to identify them precisely, but since the titles are (quite right, IMO) in English (this being WP:en), then it is not. You only have to look at the arguments about the appropriate version of 五行 to see the problem. I realise now that my "Delete" statement was not quite accurate; I think this material should be merged into a single article. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending - maybe If we are actually confident that this article and the Four Holy Beasts are functionally identical then I could back them being merged. However a redirect and potentially a name-change for the merged article may be needed to give an overarching nature. If we aren't actually confident on this, then "Keep" is the necessary vote until we are (it's not the article's fault we aren't sure, here). Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously the problem here is that few contributors are acquainted with this aspect of Chinese mythology, but in Wikipedia terms it's simple: this content has no reliable sources, so per WP:V it has to go. Can be recreated if sources are found. Sandstein 06:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no useful references in the article. Two of the refs are links to other wikipedia articles, and the third (Rong Cheng Shi) is a URL that no longer exists. Reading the discussion above, there's a lot of guesswork, which is basically WP:OR. This sounds like a potentially interesting topic, but without sources, we can't even meet WP:V. I would be OK with moving this to somebody's user space, or draft, to give people more time to work on finding good sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Sandstein and Roy Smith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred R. Bader Award for Student Innovation[edit]

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

Non-notable award lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a post graduate chemistry student award with a top prize of $5,000, not irrelevant, but not notable either. Szzuk (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dooxada Cambaareed[edit]

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

Yet another Somali "locality" scraped from a geonames mirror, and therefore not notable. The terrain is a bit more interesting than usual, apparently, but without any description there's nothing we can say other than "it's a place." Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not There place fails V. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I wonder what Somalians think about all of these fake towns. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They probably think it is Fake News. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Iranian American Communities[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability guideline for organizations criteria. Since it is a front organization for the NCRI, I suggest a redirect to the latter. Pahlevun (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment in this series of more than 15 edits, Pahlevun, the nominator here, removed most of the 21 citations then in the article, and most of the text that they had supported. Generally this was on the stated ground that these were self-published and/or "unreliable". One of the sources designated as unreliable was a report from CNN. I have not investigated the quality of the other sources removed during this series of edits, but this sort of reduction of an article to a near-stub during or just before an AfD nomination is not usually, in my view, good practice. I urge those commenting in this discussion to consider this version of the article as well as the current version. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have speedy deleted the article becuase the edits made since the creation were not "significant". Anyway, what you call a report from CNN, was posted by a user named "FreeIranNews" on iReport, and as it is asserted in the page, it is "not verified by CNN". So, this is a self-published source. I have carefully examined the sources, and I would like to shed light on the rest of the self-published/unreliable sources, which include:

Two links from ncr-iran.org (Official website of the NCRI, for which this organization serves as a front)
iacnorcal.com (Official website of the 'Iranian American Community of Northern California', another NCRI front)
mojahedin.org (Official website of the MEK, the parent organization of the NCRI)
iranfreedom.org (Closely associated with the MEK and NCRI)
deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com (Yes, a blog)
adventuresindevelopment.com (Another blog)
Seven statements by the organization itself were used as a source, which were linked on prnewswire.com, highbeam.com, eventbrite.com, marketwatch.com and ssuchronicle.com
cafebabel.co.uk link says "This article has not been vetted by an editor at Paris HQ", making it a blog post like CNN iReport

—Pahlevun (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the speedy deletion, adding or removing a source citation is always a significant edit.

I note, Pahlevun that you several times refer to the OIAC as a front. This may well be true, but is there a citable source that says so? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that self-published statements by anj organization expressing its own views are generally considered proper, even preferred, sources for those views. And of course such sources can be used for basic factual detail, such as the date of founding, current officers, location, etc of an organization. Of course they do not contribute to notability in any way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NCRI runs many front and shell organizations, some of them are listed here with a reliable source. Moreover, there are other sources designating them as such, like this report by Eli Clifton or this one by Al-Monitor that calls it "NCRI-linked", with an office "located right next door to the NCRI office". Even the source used in the article, which is published by NBC, doubts that this organization is non-profit, because it "doesn’t appear in a federal database". Anyway, this article seems a mean of promotion to me, which justifies the excessive citations used. Pahlevun (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to version of 26 December 2016 [47] and protect the page. Page has a long history of non neutral (attack) edits, like this one [48], and of mass deletions by Nom. However, the organization is described by mainstream media in recent coverage. Here is the Voice of America 2018, as "a U.S.-based Iranian-American group that calls for replacing Iran’s Islamist leadership with a democratic, secular government.."US Senators Pledge Help to Iranian Group Seeking End to Iran's Islamist Rule,; 2017 U.S. News & World Report, "The rally, organized by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, highlighted human rights abuses and called for democratic change in Iran. ", "Protesters Rally Against Iranian President at United Nations".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:. Both are examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement and thus not enough to establish notability. Pahlevun (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to an earlier (more neutral) version per E.M.Gregory's suggestions above. London Hall (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert per E.M.Gregory and London Hall's suggestion. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion has turned into a polling.

Here I'm going to apply the criteria mentioned at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria to prove that none of the sources establish notability:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
cafebabel.co.uk	N	N	N	N	0	This is a blog post, it says "This article has not been vetted by an editor at Paris HQ"
nbcsandiego.com	Y	Y	Y	Y	1
iReport	Y	N	N	N	0	Posted by a user named "FreeIranNews", not verified by the CNN
nonprofitfacts.com	N	Y	N	N	0	"NonProfitFacts.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk."
iacnorcal.com	N	N	N	N	0	Official website of the 'Iranian American Community of Northern California', another NCRI front
thehill.com	N	Y	Y	N	0	Posted on Blog section
ncr-iran.org	Y	N	N	N	0	Official website of the NCRI
israelnationalnews.com	N	Y	Y	Y	0
marketwatch.com	Y	N	N	N	0	Press release
adventuresindevelopment.com	N	N	N	N	0
ssuchronicle.com	Y	N	N	N	0	Press release
deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com	N	N	N	N	0
prnewswire.com	Y	N	N	N	0	Press release
mojahedin.org	N	N	N	N	0	Official website of the NCRI parent organization
highbeam.com	Y	N	N	N	0	Press release
eventbrite.com	Y	N	N	N	0	Press release
iranfreedom.org	Y	N	N	N	0	Website belongs to the NCRI
yahoo.com	N	Y	Y	Y	0
Total qualifying sources					1	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

These were the sources used in this version. The sources broght out by E.M.Gregory:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
voanews.com	N	Y	Y	Y	0	The article is covering the speeches made by U.S. Senators and is not about the organization
usnews.com	N	Y	Y	Y	0	Trivial mention

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be a multiple of such qualifying sources. And those voting in favor of keeping the article have failed to provide such sources, as my investigation shows. Instead, I have provided three reliable sources that assert that OIAC is a front organization. —Pahlevun (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special NOTE: I boldly restored the earlier version of 26 December 2016 per emerged consensus. This was reverted by good faith but per WP:EDITATAFD I have reverted that edit. Also, I changed a redirect of Organization of Iranian American Communities (OIAC) from National Council of Resistance of Iran. Lacking more clear sourcing or consensus (more than one author) it could not be redirected to the article or the Front and shell organizations section without advancing serious bias or subversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

@Otr500: I assume that "consensus" is not achieved by popular vote, but rather through discussions. Users who support keeping the article, have only made arguments that are discouraged in deletion discussions (except E.M.Gregory), failing to show how it meets the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria. I have assessed notability requirements above, suggesting that it does not meet the criteria. No one has commented on the assessment, yet those voting keep believe the subject is notable. How can you justify that? Pahlevun (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the refs support gng, not through any single deep ref but an accumulation of lesser mentions. Szzuk (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: Would you please name the references that support the gng? Pahlevun (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comment was clear enough. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk:. Then explaining how "an accumulation of lesser mentions" can establish notability would enlighten me, because I can see that significant coverage in multiple sources is the criteria. Pahlevun (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could easily dig up more reliable sources (like the Associated Press with a google search, which I added tot the article. This proves this organization is notable enough for Wikipedia.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff5102: I see. But Trivial mentions are insufficient to establish that topic's notability. Can you find sources with significant depth of coverage? Pahlevun (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OIAC was credited as organizer. That is not trivial.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff5102: The rally, organized by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, highlighted human rights abuses... With all due respect, this single mention is trivial (just like the example here: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.), and is not even included the body, but rather is used as a footer for the image. Pahlevun (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your explanation is invalid. This is not about some trivia concerning a politician; this is about the organizer of the event that is the topic of the article. Again, that is not trivial.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability: "...it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." Pahlevun (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The disputed fragment is about an event that is mentioned IN an article. Thus, your appeal to Wikipedia:Notability fails. Jeff5102 (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Pahlevun: I got in on this discussion far into the timeline but one thing for certain is that I cannot just go by the state of the article or citations therein. You are correct that notability is more than routine news reports. I see an organization in the United States with at least 40 member organizations and cannot just assume that there is no notability because it is not in the article or that what is there fails notability. The organization has coverage like Voice of America as well as what what looks like credible reporting concerning OIAC and OIAC of of Arkansas, but I consider this junk reporting from PRWEB (Cision) (See how it works) that is about as unreliable as can be, considering they advertise "if you pay us we will get it reported". I have yet to !vote because in all fairness I do assume there is notability not found. I see the primary site for OIAC of Az, BuzzFeed discusses Iranian-American Community of Arkansas, a branch of the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, and the now delisted "MEK". Unlike many that weigh in on a AFD I do not "fly by" !vote but tend to check back in. "IF" I do not find multiple reliable sources that are not WP:Primary, closely connected, or paid, and the ADF closes as "keep" I will be on the band wagon to give just as much research to have it deleted in the future. Currently I am not satisfied with the sourcing presented in the article and looking for sources to satisfy WP:ORGCRITE but on my only day off I am working around other projects. I saw consensus was that the article be reverted (restored) to a previous version so I did that and trying to located sources to further advance notability. Please bear in mind that a source acceptable for content may not give weight to notability but may still be reliable for content. Otr500 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Argument for deletion seems to be based on an overzealous interpretation of WP:N guidelines (and a clear failure to take WP:NEXIST into account). The organization is mentioned, to at least some depth, multiple times in reliable sources (those given above by EM Gregory easily fit that criteria) and there has been definitvely "extended" coverage in sources. If this was one trivial mention in one source, then yes delete. Except there are multiple, non-trivial mentions in sources, and WP:TRIVCOV doesn't require that all coverage be extensively about the article subject. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Solstice (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability criteria (WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG). Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the first afd was a revenge nomination and had a flood of keep votes. The article appears to have only ever had 2 refs, currently 1, google is returning marginal fare which hints at a weak keep but without much evidence. It is a christian heavy metal band (Who'd have thunk it) that split in 2006, youtube showing upto 80,000 views for some of their songs. Szzuk (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination is not out of revenge but out of MUSICBIO and GNG. I ran a Google WP:BEFORE I nominated. For the record, I am an active member of the Christian music project and wouldn't nominate an article out of revenge or in an attempt to expunge Christian metal articles from the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I clearly stated the first afd was a revenge nomination, I was casting no doubt on this afd. Szzuk (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, and I have not been able to find any sources that could establish notability based on WP:GNG. If someone unearths some non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources, then I would reconsider, but I haven't been able to find anything so far. Previous nom (12 years ago) may (or may not) have been made in bad faith, but that has no bearing on this nom. Yilloslime (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sarah Geronimo[edit]

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

This page is not a complete list of songs recorded by Sarah Geronimo, if anything its a list of "notable songs" according to Lloydieschoice, the content if it has any use can be merged with Sarah Geronimo discography NWWT (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator's suggestion to merge to the singer's discography article is reasonable, but I don't think there is anything worth merging. This list article repeats tidbits of song trivia (such as award nominations, chart positions, etc.) that are already covered at the discography article and/or the singer's main article, making the list a repeat of already-covered info in a slightly different form. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the general consensus is that "list of song" spin-out articles aren't appropriate unless they've got a lot of song's that have their own Wikipedia article. While there's no hard line/standard, her navigation template seems to suggest that only two of her songs have articles, which probably falls below just about anyone's standard of "a lot of songs". Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raissa Venables[edit]

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

I don't believe this article satisfied the notability requirements under WP:ARTIST. There are inadequate references in the article to demonstrate notability -- Pi (Talk to me!) 03:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to Keep after discussion below. Delete A search turned up numerous name checks in long lists of artists, and a few short German language mentions. WP:TOOSOON applies here. I love her work but the page appears to be a promotional effort created in 2010 by her gallery. Notability not demonstrated by published sources. 104.163.158.37 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several references to the article which contain significant coverage of this artist. There is nothing wrong with using references in the German language. Subject now meets WP:GNG and therefore should be retained. Z359q (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what either of those sources establishes about her. They seem to be lists of works, in one of them I think she just has a photo credit. Please can you explain in more detail what you are referring to to establish notability. I have no problem with the sources being in German and Italian (I speak both languages moderately) Pi (Talk to me!) 16:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing. The Hatje Kantz publication points to some kind of professional success, but it is not independent. It's hard to find significant, independent reliable sources. The ones added above by Z359q are either not significant coverage or not RS.104.163.158.37 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 104.163.158.37 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep here is a CV. [49] She has solo museum shows, and two monographs written about her work. The article is a mess, but she is notable. I’m on mobile or I would drop the key things in now. Theredproject (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the museum shows and monographs look good on first glance but are less notable on closer examination. It's one monograph and one exhibition catalogue. The majority of the solo exhibitions are at a private galleries. I see two museum solo shows: the New jersey Museum and the Roswell museum, which does not look too bad. I'm not adverse to being converted to keep, but I think the notability is more marginal than her CV makes it out to be.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... ok. I will look closer, and see what I see. It may take a day or two, as I'm maxxed IRL right now. Theredproject (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another exhibition catalogue (solo publication of hers), the Jersey City exhibition at a public gallery, and a collection at a public institution. Though her web site claims her work is held in many more public collections, on first glance only three appear to be public. I have sourced one and have added the other 2 without sources so as to help us in looking but please remove these if you think it inappropriate to add without sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

104.163.158.37 take a look at what I added. I agree it isn't quite as clearcut, but I think it still fits. The NJM show was reviewed in the NYT. I disagree that a catalog for a kunstverein show published by Hatje Kantz doesn't contribute to notability. Per my convo on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Chan this is one step further from a museum didactic text. Lopifalko removed several permanent collections which don't have any/all of their collections online, therefore they cannot be verified. Given that the others I looked for were there, I am disinclined to simply TNT the others. What confuses me is that I cannot find any of the german press. I searched directly on the websites, and via my university databases, and I couldn't find the key ones (Berliner Zeitung, Die Welt, S-Z) but it probably doesn't help that I don't really speak german... Theredproject (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one NYT article because it was merely a free ads type listing on a page with many of the same. The remaining NYT article is not a review, it is just a simple mention of the Venables exhibition ("Complementing it are solo photography exhibitions by Raissa Venables and Shandor Hassan, who are both based in Jersey City."), in a wider review of the various exhibitions showing at that venue. It might even be advisable to remove this ref too, or use it to prove the point of her residence. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lopifalko I put the NYT review back in, but left the listings out. Generally, there is no such thing as a "free add type listing" with NYT. Everything goes through editorial. Its not Time Out. The Benjamin Genocchio review in the New York Times is a review: it says so even in the URL slug. It is a review of all three shows at that venue. I disagree that including it is UNDUE. Theredproject (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without looking too deeply into this yet, it is getting there but it is not there yet. Going in its favour are a book dedicated to her work published by a major publisher (I cannot tell for sure but it appears to be more a monograph than an exhibition catalogue, though it is strictly the latter); her work held in the collection of at least one major institution; and she has had a solo exhibition at at least one significant public institution. This alone appears to achieve minimum demonstration of notability for WP:ARTIST ("The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book..."). However so far there seems to not be enough coverage by independent reliable sources – is the local The Hudson Reporter all there is? -Lopifalko (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A solo exhibition that toured a series of redlink Kunstverein (the word means a not-for-profit organisation that operates an art gallery) appears to me to be another positive contribution to her notability. However, apart from the fact I do not understand the scale of these German venues, I have only found a primary source for one of them; I have found no third party reliable sources for the tour; only the web page for the Hatje Cantz catalogue mentions them all. Perhaps I am not looking deeply enough into German language sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTIST. Hmlarson (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Industrial Training Institute, Ranipet[edit]

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

Fail notability guidelines. Looks more like advertising than a neutral description. No meaningful independent sources given and I can not find them either. They exist but notability is not proven. The value of being recognized by Tamil Nadu Open University is unclear, as that institute was only fully recognized in 2015 (date of recognition not given) The Banner talk 02:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for advertising. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. L. Anthony[edit]

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

Does not seem to qualify for WP:NSPORT given lack of professional career and coaching of a Div II team in the early 20th century. Was contested with the rationale "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject was a head coach in college football and prominent as a player, given his selection to the 1921 College Football All-Southern Team. " Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: WP:NSPORT is an inclusive standard only. It expressly provides for athletes/coaches to have articles if they pass WP:GNG. In particular, NSPORT states: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." Have you complied with WP:BEFORE by checking to determine whether the subject satisfies GNG standards? Cbl62 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did do some searching yes but clearly not a good enough one considering evidence now present. The idea that all college football coaches from that time period of notable is something I would find questionable, however. But given combination of that plus notability from championship team (again merely playing on which I would argue was not notable then or now) seems more than enough to justify keeping. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a number of sources covering the subject, who was a prominent player on one of the prominent college football teams on the early 1920s. Additionally, when he was the head football coach at Atlantic Christian, from 1928 to 1930, it was not a "Div II team" as no such thing yet existed. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is less than two months old and has undergone significant improvement since its nomination here at AfD. He was a leading football player at a major college program in the days before the NFL existed and when major colleges were the sport's highest level of play. Sources indicate that he later coached at three different colleges. Based on the coverage found to date, the subject appears to pass the WP:GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep to extend Cbl62's point, in the 1920s-1930s, the NFL was in its infancy and college football was much more prominent. Head coaches normally muster enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and I'm wiling to assume good faith that offline sources exist for a prominent coach in the 1920s-1930s.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Article has now been expanded and references added. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:30, 7 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. Killiondude (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bélanger (ice hockey)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marc Bélanger (ice hockey)

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. While he won awards in Division III of the NCAA, that is not a high enough level, as far as I understand it. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he never played in a sufficiently notable league, therefore fails WP:NHOCKEY. PK T(alk) 11:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking this over I have to agree with the nominator. The application of Criterion 4 should only apply to Division I athletes and he never got above Division III. Deadman137 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquie Jordan[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be trying to sell consulting or speaking rather than be encyclopedic - PabloMartinez (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the promotional wording and greatly improved the article. I believe she is notable for her work as a producer. She produced a season of Donny & Marie, which was nominated for two Emmy Awards. She also was a co-executive producer for the first three years of the talk show Sunday Morning Shootout and an executive producer of Square Off. WP:CREATIVE says a person may be notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" (she's helped produce three major shows) and if the person's work "has won significant critical attention," which I think two Emmy nominations counts for. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep generally per Lonehexagon who has demonstrated sufficient WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENT coverage to pass the notability requirements. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 11:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mabala Noise Entertainment[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All of the references here are sources which do not meet WP:RS. Some are itunes pages. Some are passing mentions. Some are routine listings of artist signings. Yet another page of music spam from a paid editor. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 7 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.