The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karvan Ahmadi[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, not played in a fully pro league. NZFC^(talk) 23:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As he currently fails NFooty and recreate if he does make his league debut in the Allsvenskan. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above.BabbaQ (talk) 07:26, 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) 07:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Draftfiy - Sirius now plays in Allsvenskan, Superettan is the divison after Allsvenskan and also a highly elite divison, I feel there is a slight keep in this, but he still fails NFOOTY. ATZNA 20:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please read this. My point is he plays for a club in a fully pro league and is soon to make a debut in Allsvenskan, there is no point in deleting. Thanks. ATZNA 15:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a well established consensus against applying WP:NSPORT in anticipation potential future appearances. This sort of argument gets made on a fairly regular basis and is consistently rejected. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with @Sir Sputnik. I change my vote to draftify instead. ATZNA 20:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL.  samee  converse  02:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kajjanbai[edit]

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

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 22:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to be exceptionally notable. Alternative names should be added. See here. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete generally you need strong signs of notability when you lack birth and death dates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although it seems her career was rather short, there is evidence that she appeared in some high-profile films. I believe there is some confusion about her real name, which may go some way towards explaining the lack of sources. Deb (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Kajjan is substantially notable in context to Hindi Cinema history.^[1]

The issue about her birth/death date is mentioned in ref provided above by FloridaArmy along with referential book here. Would suggest page move to Jehanara Kajjan (or Jahanara Kajjan as referenced to in pages 157, 158, 162 and figure 7.8 in the book "The Modern Girl Around the World: Consumption, Modernity, and Globalization")^[2] and ref already mentioned by FloridaArmy. Kajjan is rarely referred to as Kajjanbai now. Thanks to Deb there are refs now in the article. Kaayay (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above arguments.  samee  converse  02:22, 17 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Awards[edit]

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

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

No substantial coverage in third-party sources to satisfy WP:ORG. Article was created and substantially edited by WP:COI editors. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All references within article are based on the Awards' own website. The awards also don't seem to be specifically significant enough - no reliable 3rd party references showing up in a couple of minutes of searching online. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Calls for nomination and the granting of awards occasionally warrant brief mentions in local media. And, of course, the various recipients are quick to tout their recognition. But I've actually been surprised at how little coverage or direct discussion of the awards themselves--or the Alberta Emerald Foundation that awards them--seems to exist in reliable sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every award that exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its existence is technically verifiable in its own self-published content about itself — it has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. But the sources here are of the former type, not the latter, so they're just not cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• a Proquest news archive search makes it apparent that "Emerald Award is a name used for prizes given by several cities, including Clarksville, Tennessee (for civic participation) and Eugene Oregon (for enviromentalism.) This one gets SIGCOV in the Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald and in what appears to be every other newspaper in Alberta. Tehre have even been controversies (well, curmudgeonly environmental activists) Emerald Award finalist pulls name from awards. A solid article could be written, using reliable, secondary sources. given that Nom in incorrect in incorrect in their assertions there are "No substantial coverage in third-party sources" and that all 3 editors weighing in above are making assertions that no secondary sources or, in one case, that all of the secondary sources are "brief mentions in local media" I recommend that the closing editor roll this one over for a week. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- there is not enough coverage to establish notability. An article in the local section of the local newspaper is not enough and the fact that there are other awards with the same name elsewhere is completely irrelevant.--Rusf10 (talk) 12:23, 17 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) 17:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Reuter[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a forum to advance the career of models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a lot of coverage. Fails GNG, so delete.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable photographer's model.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 17 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) 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabaa, Somalia[edit]

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

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

Somali "town". The one source describes it as a "hypsographic point", which implies nobody lives there. The coordinates given are in the sea and I can't see any trace of settlement on the adjacent coastline. Can't find other sources to satisfy WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non existent town, fails GNG L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, at least in this form. First and foremost, this is not--and has never been--a populated place. So whatever else is true, the article text declaring this a town is very much in error. As for the place itself... The first challenge is that the orthography of Somali place names is, to say the least, not standardized. Gabaa is Ras Gaba is a half-dozen other spelling variants. In 1987, the Defense Mapping Agency published the Gazetteer of Somalia: Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names, which, as far as I can tell, still constitutes the best efforts to standardize English-language orthography of Somali place names. According to the DMA, Gabaa and friends are all junior synonyms for Raas Gabbac. In Somalia, Raas (or Ras) anything is the equivalent of a cape in English; the best known by far is Ras Hafun (which the DMA suggests we should really be calling Raas Xaafuun, but I digress...). Raas Gabbac is a far less distinguished promontory. However, it's substantial enough to have been included as one of a relatively small number of Somali geographic landmarks on the 2011 UN Cartographic Section, Map 3690, Revision 8 (which you can see in a nice full-color version on page 16 of this pdf. Which at least explains what it is (the low-resolution coordinates which put the marker in the ocean are the fault of excessive rounding by either the DMA or the Board on Geographic Names itself). But doesn't really speak to notability under WP:NGEO. The controlling guideline is that "[n]amed natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." So, the question is... do they? Local sources likely do exist, from places such as Ely (the nearest populated place) or elsewhere in Puntland. But they are almost certainly in Somali or Arabic and are even more certainly not easily accessible online. I suspect that under at least some definitions, Raas Gabbac may mark the northern edge of the Nugaal Valley, but I haven't had much luck finding sources willing to define the valley region explicitly (much less name the cape at its northeasternmost limit). Regardless, if you're read this far: not a town, not ideally under this name, and... would require an assumption of "unknown sources exist" to meet notability guidelines at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:48, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academic genealogy of computer scientists[edit]

Academic genealogy of computer scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One big BLP violation sandwich, served up on a plate of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This doesn't belong on WP but on somebody's personal blog page. (OK it should really be a database somewhere, actually) Enormous labor of WP:OR with all kinds of unsourced statements about the relationships among people, some living some not. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sourcing isn't as bad as it may appear. Almost all of academics listed have a Mathematics Genealogy Project page that includes the given information; would be pretty easy to link to the relevant page. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- First of all, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is completely unrelated to anything to do with this discussion. The page in question is obviously not a directory. Second, this is not any kind of BLP violation. Give a specific reason, nom, if you disagree. Finally, this topic is obviously notable. Computer scientists were mathematicians until about 75 years ago, so mathematics genealogies provide both sourcing and GNG satisfaction. See [4] and the mathematics genealogy project for two examples out of very, very many. Not only that, but genealogies specific to computer science are also pretty common, see e.g. [5], [6], and so on. This isn't OR by any means. This is a well-studied, easily sourceable subject whose article could use some references. Absolutely not a candidate for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a steaming pile of WP:OR. Show us a source discussing relationships based on thesis advising. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I said above, it's all on Mathematics Genealogy Project. For example: to verify that Roger Needham advised Ross J. Anderson, we have https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=42570. Adding such references would not be very hard, but it might be kind of ugly; I am not sure how to add every single reference without making the article unreadable. Regardless, this is just an issue of adding citations: the information is not unverifiable. BenKuykendall (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiability is not the issue. Also delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The project article states that it covers 222,193 scientists. Even if we assume only a tiny fraction of these relationships are significant (and who decides that?), that's still a large number >> N_{Wiki-manageable}. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you please say explicitly what part of INDISCRIMINATE you think is violated here? Certainly it can't be that there are 222,193 entries. The sheer number of entries can't possibly make the article an indiscriminate collection of information. The criteria for being a computer scientist are perfectly clear, so it seems to me that there's absolutely nothing indiscriminate about this. You ask who decides which of the relationships are significant? Obviously the RS decide that, like with every single other topic on WP. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, there are >= 222,193 article in the MathGenealogy. However, most of those are not computer scientists. Further, Academic genealogy of computer scientists should only contain computer scientists notable enough to have their own articles. This gives a much smaller number of possible entries. BenKuykendall (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're missing the main point. Where are your RS about the significance, not the mere fact of their existence, of these relationships? This doesn't rise to the prominence of the Erdős number, or even the Erdős–Bacon number. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Now you're moving the goalposts. Typically on WP we look for RS about the subject and use the existence of such sources to argue that the subject is notable and therefore article-worthy. However, now you want RS that actually discuss the significance? That's like metasignificance. A number of people have supplied RS that discuss the genealogy of computer scientists. While it would be nice to have them, we do not also need RS that discuss the significance of that genealogy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The goalposts were planted in my second sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A11 - Obviously invented. Szzuk (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you say more on why you think this? A number of real publications discuss the topic, as referenced in the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. No clear notability of relationships between listed BLPs. Over half of the listed entries do not have articles and are not needed notable inherently. Ajf773 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seem to be sufficient sources, and sufficient importance . The information in Mathematics Geology Poject is usffieent for verification. It's not indiscriminate, as all the people are sufficiently important to be included there. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does a mathematical geologist do? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete (with of course a "refund" possible to someone who wants to migrate it off of en.wp to some other web host). Clearly this has taken lots of work. And clearly, it is Useful Knowledge for someone sometimes. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. The discussion of sourcing above has shown that the article will unavoidably struggle between the Scylla and Charybdis of original research on one hand, and merely selection from a subset of the Mathematics Geneology project on the other. Bottom line is this is information that should well be maintained somewhere, but there is no reason it should be in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. 21:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 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) 17:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Anderson & The Skinny Lovers[edit]

Nick Anderson & The Skinny Lovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article on a band that does not appear to be notable per WP:NMUSIC, and whose sources don't show it meets the general notability guideline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Beyond self-produced sites, social media, and routine gig announcements, the only independent source I can find on this band is already used in the article. It's a local interview: [7], and even that is a blog. The claim that the band has "signed contracts with MTV" appears to be a basic agreement to show videos. I will be charitable and cite WP:TOOSOON. To get on Wikipedia they will next have to be covered by reliable and independent media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree it's WP:TOOSOON. Thegooduser Let's Chat 22:02, 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 keep. There is a consensus to keep, the possibility of redirects can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1.96[edit]

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

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

This number is an arbitrary approximation of an arbitrary constant; there is nothing here that should not be found at Normal distribution or Z score. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at the page view statistics it gets about 200 hits a day, so some people must be interested. It a number a lot of people will have stuck in their heads as its the key number used to tell if a test passes at 5%, generally the level used in much of medicine where there you have limited trials.--Salix alba (talk): 09:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think this article should/could be kept for now. I don't think this article needs to exist, not because it isn't significant (it is), but because this title isn't a very good one. At the last AfD, the title, 95 percent confidence interval in statistics, was suggested. Other titles such as "two standard deviations", "two standard deviations" (less accurate but still commonly used), etc. are also possible. Normal distribution, Z score, and Confidence interval are, I think, not quite as good of a location for this material. 68–95–99.7 rule is possible, and I would support a merge there, I think. I am not sure, though, and would like to read what others think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a merge in principle but there is so little actual content in this article that I don't know what to merge. A line in Confidence interval saying "the most common confidence interval is 95%" would seem to sum up the entire content of what's here. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I think 68–95–99.7 rule is the best destination, and the history section would be all that is merged. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's a good pithy title, for an important constant. To a mathematician, it's not as significant as pi, or e, but to users and writers of thousands of articles on applied statistics, it's significant. There's an article on pi of course, so 1.96 is legitimate. I suspect many of the 200 hits per day may be from people who don't know any other term to search for it under. A redirect under any of the other titles suggested would frustrate wikipedia readers, since it would be way down the page. I think the 68-95-99.7 rule is more obscure than 1.96. Now 95% is a redirect to Normal distribution, and it's a long way down the page before 95% is discussed.Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on e is called e (mathematical constant), so maybe this would be clearer as 1.96 (statistical constant). Numbersinstitute (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because e is something else. Parenthetical disambiguation is pointless if there is nothing to disambiguate from. --JBL (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename: it's hard to think what title is most appropriate here but I think it's important to note that the article's subject is not 1.96 or even 1.95996398454005423552, but z_.025. Perhaps 1.96 (approximation) or z-value of 0.975 would work. I would be happy with 95 percent confidence interval in statistics but not 1.96 (statistical constant) (the constant in discussion is not 1.96). But in any case, I think the subject itself is notable. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge elsewhere and delete/redirect. Given all the other related pages, I don't think a page on the approximation 1.96 makes a notable contribution beyond them. The value 1.96 only applies to the Normal distribution, but 95% CIs are calculated on many other statistical distributions; so I don't think titles like 95 percent confidence interval in statistics would be suitable. The software section can be deleted per WP:NOTHOWTO. Tayste (edits) 00:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's something people would expect to find in an encyclopedia. This is reasonably clear for the main title; We can deal with title problems with redirects. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 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 redirect to List of kings of Gondor. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eärnil II[edit]

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

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

Very obscure character; no indication this is a notable topic. Appears mostly in appendices, apparently. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 19:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:FANCRUFT that belongs to Wikia FANDOM! Acnetj (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Redirect to List of kings of Gondor. All in-universe material, but redirects are cheap. Frodo may live, but this fancruft article shouldn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect- fancruft, but redirects are cheap. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Chris[edit]

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

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

Non-notable Greek singer, no EL Wikipedia article about him, dubious sources and very few high-quality references. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Sims[edit]

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

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

No notability other than being related/an assistant to Britney Spears. I just did a search on Billboard, looks like her song/EP didnt chart either. Melodies1917 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - She has a fair amount of media coverage, but just about all of it is in relation to Britney Spears. Even her own music was reviewed in comparison to Spears and she has achieved very little as a musician. Almost all of the sources used to support this article are actually about Spears and mention Sims very briefly; even a fairly in-depth People article has "Britney's Cousin" in the title rather than her actual name. In short, notability is not inherited. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries[edit]

List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Nominator's rationale: WP:NOSTATS. Matthew_hk tc 18:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 18:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 18:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For more context, half-centuries seem did not have a separate article from Century (cricket) and a rough inspection in Cricket records and statistics, did not have any list of half-centuries. Matthew_hk tc 18:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTSTATS, no indication as to why this list is significant or notable. Spike 'em (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Johnlp (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is suitable for Wikipedia, Because it has some useful information about the Indian premier league Half-Centuries. So kindly request this article should not be deleted.I will improve this article please give me some time (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Mr.Mani Raj Paul:. Wikipedia is not a webhost of everything. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that had some criteria for the entry. Please see WP:GNG, WP:OR and WP:NOSTATS. Matthew_hk tc 09:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is good article because when someone Search on Google List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries

It will directly show the information of knowledge graph.

Half-Century is a unique article in Wikipedia. & Also in a past 10 years this article not be created.but in 2018 I want this article of IPL Half-Century.so kindly request to you this article should not be deleted please (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Mr.Mani Raj Paul:, as a new user, i suggested you to read the policy of wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 10:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the guidelines quoted? You thinking this is a good page is not enough. As per the above, Wikipedia is not a repository of random sliced and diced stats pages. Could you please provide a source for the overall list, as it otherwise counts as Original Research which is also not allowed. Spike 'em (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the Guidelines of Wikipedia, I update this article daily List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries.I also Provided the source, so I kindly request to you please do not delete this article (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

If you've read the guidelines, what are your views on WP:IINFO and how does this article relate to it? Spike 'em (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read guideline of Wikipedia, but I did a lots of hard work for List of 2018 Indian Premier League Half-Centuries , If this article is deleted then I feel sad, This is a sports article, please help me what I do now , please approve my article please please.... Help me... (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortuately, amount of time spent creating content is irrelevant in deletion discussions. This article suffers from a combination of not being notable WP:N, being original research WP:OR, and being collection of overly detailed statistics WP:NOTSTATS. You need to show that this article fits within these guidelines rather than appealing for sympathy. Spike 'em (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the above. Scoring a half-century isn't that unique and certainly does not warrant an article on them for the IPL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - scoring a century is fairly notable, scoring 50 is not. There is no way that a list of the 50s in one competition in one season is encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete if this article was about list of double centuries I would have kept the article. Half century is not notable enough. Also this fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:STATS. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:15, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Malone[edit]

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

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

Despite this being pretty squarely in my wheelhouse, unfortunately I can't find sufficient sources to meet our notability standards at present--the only real secondary source is a single paragraph in AdWeek. In January I declined an AfC submission for the same reason. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing an assertion of notability not substantial coverage to support one. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not all journalists are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 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 keep. Mz7 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Therese of the Little Flower Catholic Church[edit]

Saint Therese of the Little Flower Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable under any of the thresholds, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:NCHURCH. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete RC parish with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In 1998, this parish saw its 50th anniversary and the Reno Gazette-Journal included in its September 26 Sunday edition a 12 page special insert about the church.[8] The insert is called a "special advertising publication" and features numerous ads congratulating the church as well as articles which were written by Dorothy Kosich, a journalist who normally wrote for the Reno Appeal. While the insert is labeled an advertisement, the articles therein are, in my opinion, reliable sources. Most of the current building was completed in 1978 and by 1998 had 3,500 families.[9] With this information, I found more articles, including: an announcement of the church's founding in 1947,[10] an article on planned construction from 1976,[11] some brief mentions of construction in 1978,[12][13] and a bit of detail in obituaries of church priests. I generally favor inclusion for older churches (especially pre-depression-era churches) whose buildings and congregations have made a mark on a city. As this church doesn't meet my arbitrary cut-off and the current state of the article is not encyclopedic, I don't feel it necessary to !vote keep. That said, I think a borderline case could be made, and am providing these links in case anyone wishes to make use of them (check out WP:TWL if you do not have access to newspapers.com). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I ran a couple of Proquest news archive searches on differing keywords adding sources to article as I went through the hits, stopping and coming here to opine when I had satisfied myself that this is a notableparish. Lots more sources out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Oddly, I do not seem to have hit on the same articles mentioned by User:Smmurphy, different terms different engine, I suppose, But add his to mine and the ones each of us scanned or read but did not list, and I think you will agree that there is enough to show notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Smmurphy and E.M.Gregory. --Doncram (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per my standards. It (1) "It has had two or more notable congregants." (although this is arguable.) (2) "It ... has been a major place of pilgrimage, beyond merely local or congregational interest." (3) "A significant icon, relic, or other holy item has been housed therein." Bearian (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the reliable sources identified above and the ones added to the article during this discussion, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommee Profitt[edit]

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

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

Non-notable music producer. SmartSE (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he passes criteria 1 of WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". He has collaborated with NF in the composing of three very notable albums which peaked at #1, #7, and #22 on the Billboard albums chart. He has also won a notable Dove award. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, he's a collaborator for NF and some other artists however whether that work is notable isn't apparent from the refs. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Meets criterion 3 of WP:ARTIST, which states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. " This person collaborated on the writing and production of three albums that charted on Billboard charts, which are acceptable per WP:CHART. Contra Szzuk the work is notable because it charted. That's how we judge notability for recorded music. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:26, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Health intervention[edit]

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

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

"Health intervention" refers to the activities of people involved in Health promotion. This topic belongs in that article, but there is no cited content here to keep. Daask (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Health promotion is advocacy. Health intervention is action to induce people to adopt health behavior, through such things as taxation or regulations. Butthe present article is extremely weak, and it needs major improvement. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I realize  The non-technical meaning of these terms may imply those meanings, but are you familiar with the field of health promotion? Daask (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)  Note: edited 09:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree, health intervention is part of health promotion and the article is a WP:STUB with only one citation. Waddie96 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A ridiculous nomination as nom has stated no valid reason for deletion. First of all, because topic X is part of topic Y does not mean that topic X does not get its own article. Second, that there's no cited material in the article is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN. That being said, the subject of health intervention massively, overwhelmingly, satisfies the GNG. Just e.g. look at [[14]], [15], [16], and on and on and on and on. As for Waddie96's argument that this should be deleted because it's a stub, well, WP:SOFIXIT. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: I agree with the notion in the essay Deletion and deletionism where: "If you vote to "keep and cleanup", be prepared to clean up. I, for one, keep a close eye on articles where this seems to be the consensus, and I will take it back to AfD after a month or so if no one bothers to touch the article in that time. To vote for keep and cleanup and then not clean it up is just lying." So please, if you wish to keep the article then please be prepared to fix it yourself and add information from the numerous sources you have linked above (as per WP:SOFIXIT as well). The article has been a stub since its creation in 2009. There was no activity for 1 year until it was nominated AfD. -- Waddie96 (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you take an interest in an article where there are available reliable sources that are not in the article it is as much your responsibility to add them to the article as anyone else and taking such an article back to AFD instead of fixing it yourself is poor practice as the article will almost certainly be kept on the basis of existing rs, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: User:192.160.216.52 has an ongoing SPI here accused of avoiding a topic ban on all deletion discussions. It might be appropriate to disregard his/her vote. -- Waddie96 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note -- It's an ongoing SPI without evidence that no one believes is accurate. It's reprehensible of you to cite this as a reason to ignore my "vote" (even though no one votes in AfDs). And your sharing your beliefs in various random essays is kind and interesting, but it's not relevant to the outcome of an AfD. AfDs are decided purely on the basis of WP policy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Waddie96: Being a stub, for any length of time, doesn't necessitate deletion. And "Keep and Clean up" only has any moral strength at requiring those who say that if their Keep vote was contingent on it being cleaned up. Some cases obviously fall into that, however many who say that do so on the grounds of thinking it is poor, but still Keep-worthy (just) as is. I say with mixed views on this specific article, so haven't yet come to a clear view. Nosebagbear (talk)

On which note, what on Earth does "encourage at-risk subjects to develop a viable theory of mind that supersedes authoritarian structures" mean? @98.154.255.130: Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it means "It'd be nice if there were more responsible, personally mature adults in the world"? The original reminds me of Dave Barry on downward tropism in pre-adolescents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per DGG rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am unpersuaded by 192.160.216.52 (talk)'s examples and appeal to WP:ARTN. Intervention is a word widely used in a variety of disciplines to describe what they actually do. Note, for example, that Intervention (consulting) appropriately redirects to Organization development#OD interventions. Separating the page on a profession from the page on the activities of that profession seems highly unusual to me. We don't need a page on Activities of nurses in addition to Nursing. I'd propose merging, but there's just nothing here. Daask (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and Ozzie10aaaa: I realized the confusion might be related to bias in the lead of Health promotion toward public policy advocacy. I just wrote a new lead for that article that might help clarify this discussion. Daask (talk) 09:57, 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. The consensus is that the subject does not satisfy either the notability guidelines for hockey players or the general notability guideline. Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stajcer[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Triggerbit (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Spent 2 regular season games on an NHL roster, even though he did not play, and I was able to find a number of articles about him, for example here, here and here, not counting coverage of his fight with Malcolm Subban which would not count towards GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They have to actually play to meet NHOCKEY. (Not a comment on if they meet GNG or not) -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. He does not meet NHOCKEY. I mentioned his time in the NHL because that is still a notch more than most players who never played an NHL game have, which I view as a relevant consideration in a close case. Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After reviewing WP:NHOCKEY and the comments below, I have been swayed to move this to delete as it does seem to be typical local mentions. -- Dane ^talk 20:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, and I don't see how or where he might meet WP:GNG either. PKT(alk) 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being on a roster does not give notability, the person has to have playing time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and coverage is local and/or typical of any minor league athlete. I don't see that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the coverage is "typical of any minor league athlete." We go through many AfDs for minor league hockey players and most do not have this kind of coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not seem to meet the NHOCKEY criteria. Lots of brief mentions but I do not think the coverage of the subject qualifies as SIGCOV. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles I linked to all are full articles specifically about Stajcer. That is not just a "brief mention." Rlendog (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 14:22, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Decorative Arts Society[edit]

The Decorative Arts Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG I can find no independent sources that mention them let alone cover them in depth. Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I am finding a couple of passing mentions in obituaries for John Morley, founding chairman (Guardian, Telegraph) and the annual journal of the Society itself via JSTOR, but not the in-depth coverage about the Society which is needed for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Journal publications are referenced on other sites, such as the William Shipley group for RSA History ^[1], and the Crystal Palace Foundation ^[2]. The society also provides grants and bursaries for museums and individual researchers, as referenced on the Bury Art Museum website in November 2015 ^[3]. Honek (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)honek[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krina (film)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable film, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. PROD contested by the author without providing a reason. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This film will release soon all significant related of film add as reference this is a real not a fake For any kind information Movie have get UA certificate from Central Board of fim for release check on IMDb

(Thank you)

Rishi Kumar Maurya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi Kumar Maurya (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, with no prejudice against re-recreation if it does turn out to be notable. The usual Bollywood advertorial in the mainstream dailies is also missing on this one. WP:TOOSOON at best. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFILM --Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not seeing enough to meet notability. Article also looks like someone connected with the film or paid by someone on the film is editing the film and related actor/actress articles. Ravensfire (talk) 20:44, 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 redirect to Oath#Modern law. Consensus is that the primary topic for this term is its legal sense. A hatnote will be placed at the target article for the band. Mz7 (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under oath[edit]

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

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

Delete and redirect to Oath#Modern law. Very clear primary topic, and the band name is not even spaced the same. bd2412 T 15:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: According to this revision there are two films (notably without articles) with the same name that may require disambiguation in the future. I'm not sure if that means this disambiguation page should be kept, but I don't think it is as clear cut as it my seem in a quick glance. - Paul^T+/_C 16:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, I would move the disambiguation page to Under oath (disambiguation). There is still a primary topic. Absent those articles, a redirect and hatnote will do. bd2412 T 17:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree That makes perfect sense to me! - Paul^T+/_C 17:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (and Hatnote) - bd2412's altered suggestion seems perfect to me. One extremely secondary topic and two non-created articles don't warrant a frontal disambiguation page. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as sugegsted, perhaps with a hat note. The target article needs sources. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extrability[edit]

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

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

This is a neologism with few results on google. Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The content of the article is significant enough, though currently lacking in sufficient suitable references, and thus worthy of deletion in that way. The name certainly is a neologism, but a "Coping Mechanisms" [Not the band!] or "Coping (Physicality)" would both be reasonable names. I will see if I can find some more general references. @Natureium: would you have any concerns if it had a couple more suitable references and a non-neologism name? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Failed, unnoticed neologism that doesn't have the extrability to keep itself in Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism for a nonexistent "thing" based on hippy-trippy wishful thinking and the euphemism treadmill. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:25, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bell & Ross[edit]

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

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

I'm dubious about notability here. All three references, as also the "Further reading" article, are from specialized magazines/websites about "the world of watches", and I think their capacity for establishing notability in the wider world is slim. The page at The Watch Quote[17] is a dreadful puff piece about "one of the most beautiful adventures in watchmaking of the late 20th century". I looked at The Watch Quote's "Who are we?" page,[18] which is as fulsome as their page on Bell & Ross (and as the other "brand sagas" that I sampled), and it contains the suggestive statement that The Watch Quote was created "to enter into genuine partnership with the great horology brands and professionals". It looks a lot like the "partnership" involves the brand professionals writing their own page. The offers to press officers (?) and journalists to "contact our Press Service" on this page, even though vaguely phrased, suggest the same thing. The Augustman site[19] is billed as "The definitive men's network", and I can't see anything other than promotion on it; no tests, real reviews, or anything like that. Apart from such obvious infomercials, I suppose there may be mentions of Bell & Ross in reliable third-party sources that I can't find: Google gives so much advertising from sellers of the watches that it's difficult to find anything else. Anybody got anything? Bishonen | talk 15:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the french article is sourced from Le Figaro and Challenges, which count as WP:RS. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable watchmaking company that follows the normal modern methods of promotion.--Racklever (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Bishonen has questioned the company's methods. And as far as I'm concerned, it's welcome to advertise. But Wikipedia should then ignore its advertising, just as it ignores most advertising (until the advertising itself is a matter of discussion in "reliable sources"). What disinterested sources do we have? What makes the company "notable"? -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I don't blame the company for promoting themselves. But their self-promotion does not confer notability, that's all I'm saying. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete a couple of fluffy blogs and one decent ref. Here for promotion; no thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Figaro page causes my browser to freeze, but I managed to extract its text via roundabout means. What with Bell & Ross a réussi à accomplir le rêve de toute marque de luxe: imposer un modèle iconique etc, it whelms me. (Is the writer perhaps dazzled by potential ad revenue?) Are there any other sources? -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are zero indications of notability - a run-of-the-mill luxury watch company with no intellectually independent references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent. The Figaro reference mentioned above from the French language wikipedia page fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it relies extensively (exclusively?) on an interview with Ross, one of the founders. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I have nothing but the utmost respect for Ms. Bish, but I must respectfully disagree with her arguments in this case. Bell & Ross meets WP:GNG per (a) the sources in the article, and others as well. Just for instance, here they are discussed in a marketing textbook, their watches are reviewed, which, if these were books rather than watches, would be a clear indication of notability. In fact, they are reviewed in the NYT. In fact, they are reviewed multiple times in the NYT. In short, this company is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so. The marketing textbook shows an ad for these watches and spends three sentences on the company; so yes, it mentions the company, but to say the company is "discussed" seems a stretch. The first "review" in the NYT looks to me like something out of The Onion; but my (irrelevant) opinion aside, it uncritically recycles self-flattery, for example “Sapphire represents for us the apex of luxury,” said Carlos A. Rosillo, chief executive of Bell & Ross. “It is the material of choice for a product that we finish so flawlessly that it has nothing to hide.” And more of the same kind of twaddle. The second "review" says In recent years, Bell & Ross has introduced watches alongside high-concept supercars and motorcycles from its own design team. This year it’s taking that approach to a new level by pairing a watch with a plane, a single-seater pylon racer created by the brand’s co-founder and creative director, Bruno Belamich. The BR-Bird plane has the wings; the BRV1 and BRV2 Racing Bird watches have the hour and minute hands. This is the BRV2 chronograph version, which shares its graphic look with the plane, and will be made in a run of 999 pieces. -- no more than uncritical recycling of PR puffery. Where is the review? Is the watch accurate, reliable, durable, comfortable, legible? We're not told. (Or, imaginably, we are told; but my rather odd way of reading the NYT hides this from me. So please feel free to correct me.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To me it looks like you don't appreciate the same kinds of qualities in high-end watches that their users and manufacturers do. You want accurate, reliable, durable, comfortable, legible? Buy a Timex. The point is that the NYT covers the watch, not that the NYT covers the watch in a manner that you, who aren't part of the stupidly expensive watch community, would approve of. You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, but actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about. This is why we rely on RS coverage rather than our own opinions. If the NYT publishes it we assume they're publishing the relevant info. They know more about it than we do. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On first reading, 192.160.216.52, I found your comment peculiarly annoying. When I asked myself why this was, I had to concede that it was because the comment was rather good. I can almost agree with it. However: You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, but actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about. The second half may well be true. If it is true, then why the "but" in the middle? (Why not You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, and so it is; despite this, actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about?) I can also concede that the NYT knows a lot more about its business than I do. I suggest that an important part of its business revenue is "luxury" advertising and that "luxury" advertorial content keeps advertisers happy. But whatever the reason why the NYT text is flatus, it's flatus, whereas this is an encyclopedia. ¶ I looked for (somewhat) critical material about watches. It exists. "A Blog to Watch" publishes a lot of bland and uncritical "first looks"; but among these are actual reviews, for example this of an Orient watch. Strangely (to me), the matter of how well it keeps the time goes unmentioned (ditto in the other reviews that I looked at), but the reviewer exhibits a critical intelligence when evaluating its legibility, scratchproofness, etc. So sources can and do write up wristwatches without going gaga. Any examples for Bell & Ross? -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horological and watch enthusiast publications have some quirks. Critical reviews (i.e. those that assess the quality of materials, fit and finish, movement accuracy, etc.) are reserved for watches in the (what is considered low end) $300-$1000 range. Reviews of the luxury watch segment (Rolex, Brietling, Omega, Bell&Ross, etc.) tend to sound gushy and swoony because the quality is expected to be (and usually is) superb when you're paying $3,000-$10,000 for a watch. Watch movements used in that caliber are typically Swiss or in-house and are certified by the COSC to chronometer standards, so accuracy (i.e. "does it keep time?") isn't an issue. All this makes high end watch reviews hard to distinguish from adverts, because they read like a Car & Driver review of a Lamborghini, i.e. slick photos and gushy prose. Anyway, I removed all the sources that were questionably fluffy and added some more serious sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The brand in question has an entire page on their website where they archive Independent press coverage of their watches going back 4 years for pete's sake (some may be advertorial but certainly not all of it): https://www.bellross.com/pressreview It is a luxury watch company and gets the sort of coverage luxury brands get. AlasdairEdits (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this archive, AlasdairEdits. I see a set of illustrations of (cover?) pages. One can click on these. I did, a few times. Each time, I got something larger, but no more informative. If it's certain that not all the "independent press coverage" is advertorial, that's good; can you please then point us to a couple of exceptions, that is, to legible, intelligent, substantial independently-written text about the company and/or its products? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is routine, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. The arguments The brand in question has an entire page on their website where they archive Independent press coverage are not compelling; see Churnalism. A WP:PROMO page on a run-of-the-mill brand, which even luxury brands can be. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the well-known international watch brands among horologists, and plenty of good quality sources recently added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closing Admin In the hopes that this comment will spark some effort on the part of Keep !voters to provide links to references ... the current situation is that it appears that despite the number of Keep !votes, there is still not a single references that meets the criteria for establishing notability (in particular, references that pass WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: LuckyLouie, you say you "added some more serious sources". Here's one of these: <ref name="GJ">((cite web|last1=Lee|first1=Josh|title=Behind the brand: Bell & Ross|url=https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/article/behind-the-brand-bell-ross/|website=The Gentleman's Journal|publisher=Gentleman's Journal|accessdate=12 April 2018))</ref>. Its opening sentence: Internationally renowned and revered by timepiece cognoscenti everywhere, Bell & Ross has become a benchmark in the world of professional aviation watches, despite being relatively new to the industry. Its closing sentence: By combining refined aesthetics with the expertise of Haute Horlogerie, it’s little wonder why Bell & Ross has become the yardstick by which other houses measures themselves against. And what's between these two sentences is more of the same twaddle, as the writer bangs on about such seemingly no-nonsense (but actually vapid) things as in order to guarantee high-quality [sic], only the strictest quality controls are implemented, regardless of however [sic] complex the mechanism is (Just what are these quality controls, and are they stricter than those used by Rolex, Seiko or whoever? We're not told) and saying that form follows function, while saying that form follows "tribute" the Vintage collection pays tribute to key eras of the great aeronautical adventure, and particularly to the aviators who were the first professionals to consider the wristwatch as an asset on their missions (in particular, a big deal is made out of the design notion of a circle within a square) or is "radar-inspired". A wristwatch is referred to as "wrist armour" in one context where it might actually be armour ... but also in a second context where it can't be. I imagine that the bullshit in this non-article is designed to lull the reader into an appreciative stupor and to encourage advertising; whether or not the content is mere churnalism, it's junk. Failing to see how an encyclopedia worth the name can be built on junk, I believe that this article should be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel all of the sources are trivial, paid shills, and just plain wrong, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable per GNG, NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and Wikipedia is "NOT" a business yellow page directory nor free advertising vehicle. The last two alone give amply reasoning why a run-of-the-mill luxury watch company (as stated above), should not be presented on Wikipedia. There are many multiple hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of companies and this is why we don't advertise for them as they are not encyclopedic. The company self-professes "as a young house" and there is no historical significance. This continued push to get companies listed on Wikipedia needs to be resisted according to current policies and guidelines. Let them pay facebook in lieu of free full page Wikipedia sponsored advertising. Oh! It is free so why not --right? What about the "AeroGT concept car" that would seem to be pretty notable. It is a computer generated concept car for ----- advertising ----- and not an actual designed car. Otr500 (talk) 12:18, 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 and redirect to Dream Team (TV series). Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Wright[edit]

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

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

Fictional footballer that fails WP:GNG, I fail to see the point in merging or redirecting a fictional name which not many people will know, it hasn't been merged as previously suggested. I suggest a straight delete. Govvy (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Dream Team (TV series) per previous AFD consensus, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Fletcher. GiantSnowman 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect - per above, consensus is these fictitious players are not notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vainte[edit]

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

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

Article does not meet notability standards. No reliable secondary sources can be found mentioning the character. Page currently cites no sources Chumash11 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notplot. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 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 redirect to March for Our Lives. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March for Our Lives Albany[edit]

March for Our Lives Albany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, no continued coverage of the event, only primary (Wikipedia is not news). It's been a week. wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Redirect to March for Our Lives where the various locations are detailed. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a state protest. The protesters were fighting for a cause that only applies to New York State, trying to change New York's gun laws. This event has nothing to do with what the larger March For Our Lives is demanding from the federal government. I will be adding a paragraph to the article including this information. There is much more continued coverage, you just have not found it, or do not care to find it. Great Great Grandson (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC) — Great Great Grandson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Speedy Redirect to March for Our Lives. In retrospect it would have been best to just perform the redirect (giving an explanation) then place the article up for AfD if the redirect was undone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I did put up a WP:PROD and it was rejected. wumbolo ^^^ 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Arguably the only rally that warrants a seperate article is the one in DC. All the protests were held for a collective goal; this one is no exception.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: Not correct. Protests on the state capitals like this are focused on changing state gun laws Great Great Grandson (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are currently some continuous-coverage citations on the page already. Great Great Grandson (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the March for our Lives or March For Our Lives Locations pages, possibly give it a subsection there.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there's enough sources here for a stand-alone article; the list article would not be able to accommodate it. The goals are also state-specific, aimed at legislative effort in New York State. Compare with March for Our Lives Portland, currently nominated for Good article status. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into parent article. No reason to have this as a stand alone. I would suggest the March for Our Lives Portland should be handled the same way as this article based on consensus here. Springee (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: Heres are some reasons; It was a state capital protest not focused on the same issues as the larger March for Our Lives, it had an attendance of over 5,000 , and it featured US congressmen and NYS assemblymen. Great Great Grandson (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since several people I know (including the three speakers named in the article) were involved in this particular event, I'm not !voting. If this were kept, it needs a lot of trimming down of the cruft. This was created by a banned user. It's poorly written; I'm not sure how the "actions taken as a result" really follow logically, or how we'd update "this weekend." I would not oppose a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of the user account does look suspicious. Springee (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This weekend" has been updated" and I will try chronologically organizing the actions taken section Great Great Grandson (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Meets GNG. As well as its a state protest. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to parent article per above users. Werehilly (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent article. There's nothing special about this march vs any of the other marches in other cities on the same day. People marched. People gave speeches. Some politicians showed up. The local papers covered it. Merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 17 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Garay Nagy[edit]

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

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

Can't find any in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show that he passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article indicates he passes WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing much either. The one thing that seems legit is one private collection here [20]. Otherwise all I could get was a gallery with a wix site [21] a local newspaper story [22] and a postcard [23] for a show at Gallery Steiner. Nothing in OneSearch. Theredproject (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is just total garbage vanity spam. RS Not available, fails GNG.104.163.158.37 (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this undisclosed native advertising. MER-C 16:26, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D-Block & S-te-Fan[edit]

D-Block & S-te-Fan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable DJ duo. They have placed on the DJ Mag Top 100 polls for several years but it does not indicate notability because the polls are determined by fan votes. There is a lack of significant coverage of reliable and independent sources. The duo doesn't seem to pass WP:MBIO either as they have not had a single on a national chart or on airplay. They also have not released two or more albums on a major record label or a notable important independent label. KingAndGod 14:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons stated above. I did a web-search on them and no media coverage came up, not even from Dancing Astronaut which is normally very active in these sort of artists. Web searches only lead to ticket-sales and performance venues, which suggests that this topic isn't notable enough as for now. aNode (discuss) 16:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Rights Club Nepal[edit]

Animal Rights Club Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Club does not appear to meet criteria at WP:ORG. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination but the org lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one reliable ref in the article the rest primary or youtube, google and news showing nothing. It appears to be a local club with limited numbers of members. Szzuk (talk) 16:48, 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 redirect to Downtown Phoenix. I've redirected the article for now since most of the existing content was unsourced, but content related to the topic can be selectively merged/added at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC), revised 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Square[edit]

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

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

Not notable. This name is not in widespread use. It is mostly disused. Searching turns up two residential buildings that use the name, one of which is not even within the boundaries listed in this article. Even the website listed (coppersquare.com) goes to a site now called Downtown Phoenix. This appears to be a marketing term that never stuck. The area is better covered in Downtown Phoenix. MB 13:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge It's easy to find sources which discuss and explain the program, in which that part of Phoenix was coloured copper -- its street furniture, shuttles, &c. The new branding of "Downtown" seems more vague but, in any case, that's a matter of ordinary editing; there's no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Downtown Phoenix. SportingFlyer talk 05:14, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonso A'Qen-Aten Jackson[edit]

Alphonso A'Qen-Aten Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not currently meet notability criteria, e.g. Notability guidelines for actors. I've found no significant coverage in reliable sources. This person appears to have mainly worked as an extra or in minor roles, and Wikipedia is not IMDB. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NACTOR; I can't see any credited roles for Jackson other than as an extra. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There is an updated credit in Black Lightning Season 1 Episode 12 that aired on 4/10/2018 in which this actor is credited on & there are a host of other credited projects that are awaiting release in 2018. He also received an award as an actor on the rise in the 2018 Atlanta Actors awards.DCCLXXVII (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DCCLXXVII: Please re-read WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, (actually, all of Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:GNG. Simply being in films or TV shows, credited or not, is insufficient. The Atlanta Actors Award, assuming it is the same as this one, is not a well known award. We need significant coverage of the subject from multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject . Promotional coverage, press releases, passing mentions, self-published, or coverage in non-reliable sources do not demonstrate notability. While the subject may become notable in the future, Wikipedia does not jump the gun to cover subjects before they are become known (lest we perpetuate outright promotion), and it currently appears too soon for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not IMDB, nor LinkedIn. And if you are affiliated with Mr. Jackson, paid or otherwise please review conflict of interest guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:14, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Mz7 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I ended up doing a WP:BOLD redirect to Ministry of Sound since there are so many backlinks to this article. The WP:REFUND still applies because it's a soft delete; if any editor wants the old history of the article restored, let me know, and I can do it in a jiffy. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data Records[edit]

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

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

Non-notable subsidiary of the Ministry of Sound record label. It does not have significant in-depth coverage as required by WP:NCORP & WP:GNG. The only reliable source I've found about this label is a short paragraph by Resident Advisor[24]. It is not sufficient to pass the relevant notability guidelines. KingAndGod 13:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 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. With no high-quality sources presented, I'm happy to apply WP:BLPDELETE here. Mz7 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Dayneko[edit]

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

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

The article is sourced exclusively to The Sun - that's a WP:BLPDELETE almost right there. I can't find any sources outside of tabloid journalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 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. Its well established that a good article still needs to meet inclusion standards and in this case the demolition of the sourcing has not been refuted, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Hit[edit]

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

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

Tagged for notability for over a year. Charted 193 in South Korea so doesn't really meet WP:NSONGS. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref check

• defpen Tiny article saying that new single coming soon
• Latina Tiny article saying that new single has arrived
• Softpedia RS? Tiny article saying video has been released
• Allmusic Album review with Good hit mentioned by name only.
• Rap up Tiny article offering "sneak peak" at Good Hit
• Billboard Album review with small mention of Good Hit alongside other songs
• Buzzworthy Probably best source. Paragraph about the song.
• Popcrush Album review - 2 sentences on song
• Slant Album review - "Inaptly named Good Hit" only mention.
• Digital Spy Album review - (see "Good Hit") used when describing generic songs
• AV club Same as above
• LA times About another song - Good Hit gets a short sentence
• MTV Romania Apparantly ]she is "super hot" in the video
• Standard coverage for any song released by any major artist. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Strong Keep- the article is listed as a good article, and hasn't hurt anyone for ~6 years. Both of these create a presumption for inclusion, and I haven't seen anything to rebut that presumption. Being a single from a significant artist is also strongly in the article's favor. Passes WP:GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a good article has nothing to do with notability. In fact it suggests that what we see is what we get (i.e. there are unlikely to be any more good sources out there to demonstrate GNG). How long it has been here is irrelevant, but it has been tagged with a notability and reliable sources tag for nearly two years so I am not the first to question its notability. Can you show a reliable source that gives significant independent coverage of the single (requirement of WP:GNG)? Album reviews don't count. I have gone through all the independent sources in the article and not found anything. It fails the WP:SNG so must rely on GNG. We don't presumed every significant artists singles are notable. The only argument I can think of to keep is that the other singles on the record have singles. That is weak at the best of time, but especially as some of those singles should probably be deleted as well. AIRcorn (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Neutral, we're just into the realms of what constitutes significant coverage, there are a large number of weak refs leading me to a weak keep. Szzuk (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a closer look at those refs. The number is less than you think as album reviews don't count towards a singles notability and most of the others consist of a sentence or two. The best ref is an MTV blog AIRcorn (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look and switch to neutral, the refs are a bit weaker than at first look. Szzuk (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On third reflection, now a delete. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 4 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! 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alhassan Mohammed Gani[edit]

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

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

A vice-chancellor of a university that doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page. What's stated in the article doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The university deserves a Wikipedia page, if this article can be written better I'll vote keep. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In many countries based on the English system, the vice chancellor is the actual head of a university; the chancellor is a ceremonial position. People who hold vice chancellor positions at major universities in those countries pass WP:PROF#C6. Do we have any information about whether Nigeria is one of those countries and about how major Federal University, Kashere is? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Oh yeah, I forgot about that; I'm from a country where university chancellors are not ceremonial but actual executive roles, so I forgot that that was the case in Commonwealth countries. Since Nigeria is a former British colony, I presume that they probably took inspiration from the British education system, but just to be sure we may need to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria for clarification. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 and David Eppstein:"Vice chancellor" is the chief executive and academic officer of University here while "Chancellor" is ceremonial/titular role given to traditional rulers. In addition, generally all vice chancellors (of public versites, at least) are seasoned professors with long record ( what is called full professor in U.S.). –Ammarpad (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the university (if and when an article is created). This is one of many articles on Nigerian academics created by an inexperienced user in poor English and with poor references (and a possible COI). I don't necessarily think the subject is not notable but the article definitely isn't ready for the encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deb:. They are being created in poorly-managed edit-a-thon. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I agree with the non about the sate of the article, this person clearly passes WP:PROF#C6. Also per WP:NEXIST, poor stat of the article doesn't mean he is not notabele.–Ammarpad (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the article has to make a statement of notability, which is where this one is lacking. His notability is reliant on his academic position, but the notability of his workplace is still at issue. If you're prepared to work on the article to bring it up to standard, we can put it into Draft space.Deb (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be mentioned that it is not worth singling out this article. Most of the articles listed at Category:Nigerian academic administrators and Category:Nigerian academics were created at that editathon. The status of most of those articles is similar and therefore you could possibly find out the organisers and arrange for mass improvement of those articles. It seems that Princebenj (talk · contribs) (also the creator of the mentioned article) could have been one of the organisers. I would therefore insist you to take the critical issues up with him, especially because he is still continuing to create similar articles. I am just another volunteer who is trying to help. Diptanshu 💬 04:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While monitoring new pages, I have come across a shower of articles on Nigerian academics, possibly created as a part of an editathon. It seems that the articles come under WP:NPROF and therefore can be retained. Diptanshu 💬 18:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with Diptanshu 💬 above.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn, I should've done a bit better WP:BEFORE (I did actually look, just not hard enough.) (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Capp[edit]

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

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

Non-notable photographer, no in depth coverage, fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Strong Keep her work is in over a dozen museum collections. I could go on, but that is enough to satisfy WP:NARTIST

--Theredproject (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A clearcut case. Also meets WP:AUTHOR for her book on Hutterites, which was widely reviewed. Here are a few instances: [25], [26], [27], and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:14, 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. Editors can consider merging by being bold or starting a discussion on the talk page Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular corner flags in English football[edit]

Triangular corner flags in English football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Of the five accessible sources in the article, only one appears to actually be about this topic; the other four are only passing mentions or otherwise not specifically about triangular corner flags. One of the sources is Football-Stadiums.co.uk, which as far as I can tell is not used in any other article (and in any case, I am unsure about its reliability). I don't have any access to the two books so I don't know how much detail they give the topic. As for triangular corner flags themselves, most of what I could find online are forum posts. Had corner flag been a separate article rather than a redirect, I would have suggested a merge there. At best, perhaps this could get a brief mention at FA Cup. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Football pitch - Properly sourced, this could be an encyclopaedic topic, but not as a separate article. Corner flag would be my preference, but since that topic is also insufficiently notable for its own article, football pitch will have to do. – PeeJay 09:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It fulfills WP:GNG, this is a tradition in English football culture which is certainly not insubstantial. Indeed I could even cite the film (which I think I will). The sources are more than just passing mentions for example, the Telegraph one is stating that the Triangular flags are a reason for why AFC Wimbledon was stating a claim to be the heirs to Wimbledon. The book sources cite the tradition being used popularly but erroneously in quizzes and the other cites football context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into football pitch (not independently notable) and then delete (not a valid search term). GiantSnowman 09:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: As far as I know, "delete and merge" is not exactly valid due to attribution reasons (in that an article can't be deleted if it's a source of merged content). It needs to be one or the other. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You merge the history into the existing article and then delete the redirect. GiantSnowman 09:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The above merge !votes appear to have been WP:CANVASSed by Naruto here and here. The reason why they have been told about this on their talk pages seems to be based upon opinions given at WT:FOOTY. To me in my opinion, it is giving the appearance of WP:VOTESTACK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - WP:AGF applies. An editor went to a WikiProject for advice on notability of an article, was informed by two experienced editors that it did not appear notable, and then took it to AFD. GiantSnowman 10:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the editors I pinged were users who had participated in the earlier discussion at WT:FOOTBALL, regardless of their opinions of the article. If there were any other editors who mentioned they wanted the article to be kept, I would have pinged them too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Not to mention the fact that I am my own person. I had something to add to the discussion, so I added to it, not simply because I was asked to. – PeeJay 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this is (as it appears) an obscure tradition, then we can validly have a separate article on it. Merged to football pitch (which is also international) it would be lost in UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is an AfD discussion page and discuss whether delete or not. Not discuss about merge. Merge discussion please see WP:PM, thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatives to deletion can be proposed/discussed here. GiantSnowman 10:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]