The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesha chanchala[edit]

Maneesha chanchala (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:BLP notability guidelines. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NACTOR - lacks reliable independent verifiable sources to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 24 February 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)} 13:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths by motorcycle crash[edit]

List of deaths by motorcycle crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which in my opinion, this is. Kees08 (Talk) 07:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NOT is inapplicable because this isn’t a proposal to delete the information on this list from Wikipedia. With or without this list, all the information remains because all the entries are biographical articles, with the details of the motorcycle crash. The list simply repeats select facts from notable articles. There’s nothing indiscriminate or random about it. Whether to have such lists is under editorial discretion, not policy, as explained in WP:CLN. I don't see how this list violates any guidelines in WP:AOAL. Consensus on this can be seen at the Featured list List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication, and the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by cause of death. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the editor on the talk page from 2010 (not pinging because I am not shopping for votes), that this seems suited to be a category instead of a list. The intro has little room to be expanded because I do not think there is much to write about it. The line between a list and category can be fuzzy sometimes, but I think this one is clearly into category territory. Kees08 (Talk) 05:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not an unusual point of view, but the guideline over at WP:NOTDUPE it says "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." This isn't a rigid policy and "should be avoided" doesn't mean "is never allowed", but it's not the strongest ground to stand on. In general, we tolerate lists that are poorer substitutes for categories, or categories that are poorer substitutes for lists, because as long a both exist everyone can pick their poison. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a category for it? I checked earlier and did not find one, it just linked to the list. Kees08 (Talk) 06:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The awkwardly and inconsistently named Category:Motorcycle road incident deaths and Category:Motorcycle racers killed while racing (which maps to Rider deaths in motorcycle racing. A lot of articles and categories in this area have less than ideal names. Many 'list of deaths by foo accident are not lists of people (notable bio articles) killed by foo but actual annual fatality statistics and fatality rates of foo-accidents. We need to do some naming rationalization between Category:Dead people and categories like Category:Transport fatality rates. But even if these categories didn't exist, generally your arguments would allow creating the category, but not necessarily deleting the equivalent list. Editorial discretion could prevail, but in principle keeping both is fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLT as a list article that more or less duplicates a valid category. That being said, the scope should be cleared up a bit - the list as titled would seem to include deaths in racing, but there's another category/list article for that; perhaps they should by synced-up title-wise. ansh666 08:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article seems to be somewhat of a split-off from List of people who died in traffic collisions but including only those in motorcycle accidents. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to List of people who died in motorcycle crashes. The title is horribly awkward, but this does not mean that the list is filtered too much by an arbitrary identifier. !dave 11:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there are many similar lists on WP and I can't see why this one would be particularly not notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - valid list. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a broad enough category to sustain a list and in keeping with other lists of people by cause of death. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 1 March 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limor Blockman[edit]

Limor Blockman (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. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article does need help, but Dr Limor is notable enough for an entry. I added additional citations to her page. A quick search shows several secondary sources discussing her work.Jewish Journal, HuffPost. I also noticed she seemingly was married, so she sometimes appears under the name Dr. Limor Blockman-Michelman, Dr. Limor Blockmanmichelman, or Dr. Limor Michelman, depending on the language and publication. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is a community paper that anyone can submit an article to (journal's FAQs). The same author that wrote the article on Blockman, Ilana Angel, also writes the latest happenings from Real Housewives of New Jersey for the journal.
• It's not that difficult to get something onto HuffPost, and Blockman only appears to have one article on it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states that a subject may be notable if they receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Anyone can submit an article to any newspaper, so I don't see how that's relevant here. The key factor is that both the Huffington Post and The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles are unaffiliated secondary sources with an editorial process, and the authors of the articles were unaffiliated with the doctor. Wikipedia does not discriminate against local coverage (WP:ITSLOCAL). Lonehexagon (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Huffigton Post does not have editorial control,and is therefore not a RS for anything except the opinion of its columnists, Certainly not BLP, and most certainly not the notability of BLPs. The JJGLA alone is not sufficient to support notability . Thje rest of the references are hopeless. I'm not saying she might not be notable , but just that there's no satisfactory evidence of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's good consensus here that we don't have the sources we need. It's worth mentioning for the record that there's no requirement that sources be in English. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talca International Film Festival[edit]

Talca International Film Festival (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 looked for sources to cite to demonstrate notability, but there is a paucity of sources other than event notices, lists of film festivals, and passing mentions under the old and new names of this festival, under its acronym, and under its English title. Largoplazo (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm seeing some news coverage such as this El Heraldo article which discusses their cooperation with FELINA and describes them as the two most important festivals in the region. This is not very strong by itself, but likely much more could be turned up by someone with better access to newspaper archives. SpinningSpark 23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely nothing in English. A few mentions similar to the one Spinningspark links in Spanish, but they all feel vaguely promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not referenced, does not really pass WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:05, 28 February 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 Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL / WP:BIO1E. Dead 32 years old scientist (or a procurement officer - deputy director of commercial affairs for the Natanz uranium enrichment plant - the scientist label seems to be related to the group as a whole, possibly applied to this individual per the group affilation). No coverage of him of not besides his death and circumstances leading to his death. His death is already amply covered in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - not much to merge, and topic-wise these deaths are treated as a group, and not individually. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect The article is pretty much only about the assassination, with minimal personal detail. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - I think this is a clear B1E with a clear destination for redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article should be expanded. However, his notability is clear. There are few scientists who are killed due to their involvement in the nuclear program of Iran. The reliable news sources such as huffington post, Guardian, washington post have covered it.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly his death has been covered - widely. However that is a WP:BIO1E situation. How is he notable besides his death?Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we can move it to Assassination of Ahmadi-Roshan--Seyyed(t-c) 15:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no other appropriate article, however in this case we have Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists (and had Ahmadi-Roshan been a single death, it might have been un-notable to being with. The string of related deaths here lends notability to the topic).Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. There might be a little content worth merging, but the article is largely excessive coverage of blow-by-blow news stories after his death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect Notability is based on one event and WP is WP:NOTNEWS. A redirect to the assassination article seems best.Sandals1 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inlage[edit]

Inlage (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)

directory entry by a WP:SPA, no claim of significance, no reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:50 year rule. SpinningSpark 23:36, 21 February 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 KDE. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KWordQuiz[edit]

KWordQuiz (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 shows no evidence of notability. It has once been deleted in the past. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article expansion may be preferable. I don't see the "no notability" part. Sure, it may be small, but it has a notable enough wikitable, a large table below it, references, but not enough sections. I disagree with the deletion. Xyaena 14:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you 'don't see the "no notability" part', then it is clear sign that the article must be deleted. Notability must be stark! —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at Category:KDE I'm not sure if every single application by KDE deserves its own article. I would like it if Okular had an article but honesetly the sources don't seem that great either. Wqwt (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to KDE. I spot checked a few entries in Template:KDE; my initial impression is that everything there could be merged into KDE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jovita Veronica Alvares[edit]

Jovita Veronica Alvares (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)

Vanity profile. Fails WP:ANYBIO.  M A A Z   T A L K  14:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete inadequate sourcing to establish notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another article on a non-notable Pakistani Catholic. We have an awful lot of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added additional secondary sources. She has won awards for her work^[1] and been covered by secondary sources.^[2]. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Dawn.com reference you added is very poor quality. It does not help to add minor mentions like this. Please read WP:RS, as I have suggested to you previously. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing that adds to notability. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:37, 26 February 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! 19:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Razmik Amyan[edit]

Razmik Amyan (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 source for wining one award, not notable. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep He did not simply win an award. Honored Artist of Armenia is the HIGHEST award in the Republic of Armenia. Harut111 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not National Hero of Armenia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the highest cultural award in Armenia. Besides, he has got dozens of other awards. Harut111 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are at least two other Honorable awards, Merited Artist of the Republic of Armenia and People's Artist of the Republic of Armenia, (Honorable, not awards of merit), so I cannot find any reference to it being the highest award (even for artistic merit). If he has won other awards then feel free to add them and we can see if he meets our notability criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merited Artist of the Republic of Armenia and Honored Artist of Armenia are the same ones. I don't know anything about People's Artist of the Republic of Armenia. I think it is not in use anymore. Harut111 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need RS to support any of this, Nor can I find even any reference to Honored Artist of Armenia being the highest award of merit for artistic achievement. It might help if you could provide a link to substantiate the claim it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MUSICBIO and then provide an RS supporting one of these criteria, at least (if he is that famous criteria 2 should be easy, one charted single).Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artsakh-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Honored Artist of Armenia looks like a seriously good award, established by statute, in the personal gift of the President of Armenia, only awardable after recommendation by other, reputable, Armenian authorities. I have not found any citation which says that it is the most prestigious award in Armenia; on the other hand, I have found nothing which suggests that any other award is higher. It looks to me to deserve similar respect to e.g. the British honours of KBE and DBE. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 16 February 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! 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avid Bioservices[edit]

Avid Bioservices (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)

Biotech company that failed and has turned into a contract manufacturing organization (CMO). This article was "owned" by people flogging its stock and I caused some ruckus among them by turning it back into a WP article (see the talk page). Now that their lead drug candidate has failed and they have become a CMO with no big "cash out" for the stock flogging abusers of WP let us delete already. It is barely notable, if it is notable at all per plain old GNG. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company.TH1980 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Run-of-the-mill contract manufacturing company, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax / made up. —Kusma (t·c) 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DolceVita Institute of Technology[edit]

DolceVita Institute of Technology (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 institute doesn't exist and the whole article is fake. The creator is user:Bianbum, aka Giuseppe Macario, which is responsible for the creation of a whole universe of fake websites. As you can read by this la Repubblica's article: "He claims to be professor at the alleged-to-be 'DolceVita Institute of Technology', whose website is offline, and that on Wikipedia is defined as the first and only Vatican institute in the Technology area. A proper fake news, as the Vatican stated after laRepubblica's control " ("[vanta] una docenza persino nel fantomatico 'DolceVita Institute of Technology' con sito irraggiungibile e che sulla propria pagina Wikipedia si definisce come la prima e unica istituzione nel settore dell'Ict nello Stato del Vaticano. Una vera e propria fake news e come tale viene liquidata dal Vaticano, dopo una verifica da parte di Repubblica.") It would also be advisable to double-check and triple-check everything related to Macario. Ripepette (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; research only brings up a web of wikipedia and facebook articles and a strange twitter account, and a questionable Italian article. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as hoax. The only ref that mentions this group claims that it only exists in SecondLife, and a credible Italian newspaper says it's a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons specified by everyone else. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete for the reasons already cited. The "official website" ([1]) is currently not reachable, and "La Repubblica" is authoritative enough (see article [2]: "viene liquidata [come fake news] dal Vaticano, dopo una verifica da parte di Repubblica" – "Dismissed as a "fake news" by the Vatican after la Repubblica's own verification". Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and tagged as such. This is a WP:HOAX article, a location that is apparently a user-generated space in the game Second Life. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 February 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! 19:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Batti Gul Meter Chalu[edit]

Batti Gul Meter Chalu (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)

Unreleased film in production that fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFILM. Shooting for the movie has started, but no in-depth coverage has been produced about the production of the upcoming film, so WP:NFF is failed. Additionally, the film has yet to receive the widespread coverage and consideration as a lasting or significant impact on the film industry to meet WP:NFILM criteria. A move to Draft is also an acceptable outcome in my view. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm seeing lots od coverage for the film already. Seems a strange nom to me. Notable film with stars. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film has a cast of notable actors, but this in itself does not make the film notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NFF is the major concern, as the coverage about the film itself is in my view lacking in significance. Per NFF, Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theaters or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable, and the film was reported to have begun principle photography on 12 February. Cruft about the appearance of notable actors in a future film does not meet these requirements.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with SamHolt6 on two counts WP:NOTINHERITED significance. The actors do not make the film notable. The film must have its own independent coverage which it lacks. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the notability criteria. "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theaters or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". This one has significant coverage in the media, a simple google search will tell you that, which is what "notability" is. An expectation of "in-depth coverage" for any unreleased film, not just this one, is silly. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not related to the amount of information that exists around a topic, but rather the verifiability and depth of said information. WP:SIGCOV exists for this very reason. As for your other concerns, news about actors slated to appear in the film do not themselves lend notability to movie. Your statement "An expectation of "in-depth coverage" for any unreleased film, not just this one, is silly" is also not applicable, as WP:NFILM clearly lays down notability criteria for released film (and so future films do not pass by default) and WP:NFF (Which is intended to allow articles for legitimately notable future films to be created without passing NFILM]] requires the production of a film, not just it's cast, to be notable. All of these need to be fulfilled through the citation of in depth sources, this article lacks this quality.--SamHolt6 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not verifiable? The fact that major publications have written about the film, including this and this, to list just two, is reason enough to merit an article. Your concerns are invalid for an unreleased film. Repeating the same arguments will not help either. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a personal opinion that clashes with established policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the notable guidelines. Echoing Krimuk, we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage" from a film which is in a nascent stage. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that an article is notable can be boiled down to personal interpretation, but WP:NFF is a policy for this very reason.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If it is true that 'we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage"' as @Yashthepunisher: and @Krimuk2.0: argue, then a WP article isn't warranted, either. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON at this point. Re: we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage" from a film which is in a nascent stage -- then the article should not be created yet. If no suitable sources exist, the only purpose for this page to be here is to promote the film, which wikipedia does WP:NOT do. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "in-depth coverage" for an unreleased film that's currently filming, and direct me to the specific policy. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. G11 by Bishonen (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Khan[edit]

Bobby Khan (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)

Self promotion. Notibility. PabloMartinez (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, Pablo. Completely unsourced, highly promotional, chiefly edited by the SPAs User:Bobbykhan19, in June 2017, and the recently created Bobby Khan Productions. In fact this is more of a candidate for speedy than AfD. I've speedied per WP:G11 and salted, since it has been created twice, and blocked Bobby Khan Productions. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 21 February 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. I'm going to hold off on the salting for now. If somebody wants to go down that path, pursuing a topic ban might be a possibility. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsito Das[edit]

Ipsito Das (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 previous page on this person was deleted at AfD in 2013, with another instance deleted as CSD G4 shortly afterwards. The sources in this latest version are also poor: largely WP:UGC sites, some self-referential such as on the FStoppers portfolio where he is described as an " IMDB recognised professional Fashion Photographer". The closest to substantial coverage may be the MyFashion19 item: "To rebrand her-self she communicates to International Fashion Photographer Ipsito Das known as master of rebranding in fashion industry. Who has already covered several fashion shows like MBFW, Victoria’s Secret for several fashion magazines."; that may help verify the subject as a working photographer, but neither that nor anything else appears to indicate WP:CREATIVE notability. AllyD (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. His own "about us" (plural) page reads in its entirety "Ipsito Das is IMDB recognised professional Fashion Photographer was born in Kolkata in 1985. Born and bought up in family where culture was nurtured in painting,". Really, if this is all he can say about themself, I can't be bothered to explore what might have been overlooked for this WP article. I realize that this is a lazy way to approach an AfD and therefore am putting this on my watch list and am open to persuasion that I'm utterly wrong about him/them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I request this article to be "CONSIDERED" as well --Adrtii loghania (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC):Ipsito Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- (<\include>Wikipedia:Ipsito Das Thank for revision of the article. This article contain much of the reliable source link which is WP:NEWSORG sites should be treated as valid resource. valid references sites are here under :WP:CREATIVE. We have http://www.ftkindia.com is a news website under category WP:NEWSORG. another reference http://www.myfashion19.com/ipsito-das-fashion-photographers-terns-magazine-publisher/ website under category WP:NEWSORG Kindly let us know even in those two are website under category WP:NEWSORG what could be the reason for deletion. I also found several News Organisation published news.[reply]

• Delete and ideally salt. The editor has in the past inserted the photographer's name in articles of several fashion shows when there are hundreds of them doing the same job and aren't mentioned. MT Train^Discuss 07:34, 22 February 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! 19:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Capital[edit]

American Capital (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. First source is affiliated, second doesn't currently mention it. Google News only pulls up a million other companies with "American Capital" in the name but not this one. I strongly suspect that the article creator (Info456) and largest contributor (AAO2012) are employees of the company. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per assessment above. London Hall (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Delete per nom but since this was listed on the Nasdaq exchange there is a good chance that analyst reports exist and if so, the topic would be notable. I've searched and I cannot find any analyst reports available hence my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 1 March 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! 19:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Inflict[edit]

To Inflict (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 short film lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Initially To Inflict had 2 verifiable sources that were of course older from 2013 and retrieved last on 2013-09-08. One of the sources showed "To Inflict" as a notable story on the Indie Fest USA website. Being 5 years later now there is no longer a mention of the film because the website updated their latest films for their last festivals and the upcoming festival — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techform (talk • contribs)

• Comment - Unfortunately none of the "references" provided are in-depth or non-trivial. Just because the article meets the "Other evidence of notability" section of WP:NOTFILM, it does not mean it is automatically notable. The section states," These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." Where is the Indie Fest USA story? reddogsix (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment And those sources, even if they were in-depth, do not match what the Other Evidence listing calls for, as none of them were published 5 years after release. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sign of meeting WP:NOTFILM, per nominator. The "two added sources" are a one-sentence mention in an article, which does not convey significant notability, and a database listing, also not indicative of notability. Digging up the IndieFest page that was linked to via archives, I am not seeing mention of this film, much less in-depth coverage. There's no there there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The film is little known, thus failing WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. The obscurity of this subject warrants consideration of WP:COI. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:44, 23 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Thajudeen[edit]

Syed Thajudeen (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)

Purely promotional, plagiarised article. Non-notable. I couldn't find any sources other than his own websites. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Keep. The article was a terrible promotional junkpile, so I trimmed it. If one actually searches in Google books or Gnews, there are many sources. Being in two museum collections means automatic notability via WP:ARTIST. needs at least one source to be added or could be deleted via PROD.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(21 minutes later) I've added nine sources, one of which is an Oxford dictionary of islamic art... so perhaps time to withdraw this AfD? 104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Miles[edit]

Ellie Miles (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 notability criteria for rugby union players as the Women's Premiership is not fully professional (see the WikiProject's list), which is how the "major competition" requirement of WP:SPORTSPERSON is assessed for rugby union players. Furthermore, fails WP:BASIC due to the lack of depth in the coverage presented in the article's citations. Any number of people are casually mentioned in local newspapers and specialist subject newspapers; this does not render them notable. Furthermore, this article is more or less orphaned, only being linked to in the mainspace from Miles (surname) and Tunbridge Wells Girls' Grammar School. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It has sufficient sources around it to meet WP:GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: GNG requires reliable sources giving significant coverage, not just any sources mentioning the subject trivially. So let's go through them:
    1. Her section on the Harlequins website – nope, fails WP:IS#How to meet the requirement
    2. Her section on the Women's Elite Rugby – nope, fails WP:SIGCOV
    3. An article on the Harlequins website – nope, IS# again
    4. An article on another club's website that mentions her in passing – nope, SIGCOV again
    5. Kent & Sussex Courier on the fact she ran a school rugby club – nothing wrong with the source this time, but the subject matter hardly creates notability. Curiously the Bexhill Observer frequently discusses what the local parish priest, Fr David Reynish, has been up to. So I guess that means he's notable? o.O
    6. Rushall life – nope, in fact that's not even an allowable source, see WP:BLPSPS
    7. Kent & Sussex Courier – nope, see 5, this time it also fails SIGCOV
    8. Kent & Sussex Courier – see 5
    9. Tunbridge Wells RFC – nope, fails both SIGCOV and IS#
    10. Schoolgamesfinals.org – nope, she's not even mentioned in the prose bit, so SIGCOV again
    11. Tunbridge Wells RFC again – can't comment on SIGCOV because offline, still IS# issue though
    12. Another article on the Harlequins site – nope, obviously IS# again
    13. The Rugby Paper – maybe, can't comment on the SIGCOV though
    14. Times of Tunbridge Wells – fails SIGCOV yet again

  So in summary, while 13 of these sources might be fine as sources of information for the article, only four of them (if being charitable, otherwise nil) actually qualify as sources that can support the subject's notability - and three of them are from the same publication. Sorry, but from where I'm sitting it looks like Ellie doesn't meet WP:GNG in any way, shape or form.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This might be case of an article too soon. Perhaps the best option might be to draftify or userify. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I saw that Time & Leisure magazine recently covered her as a fast-rising female rugby player who is getting more women involved with the sport. It's significant coverage about her, which I added to her entry.^[1] Lonehexagon (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is an interview. Which means it is not an independent source. Please read WP:RS.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per WP:GNG, a subject may be suitable for an article if the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, she is discussed in The Kent and Sussex Courier,^[2] Time & Leisure Lifestyle Magazine,^[3]. Miles was also honored by the Turnbridge Wells government^[4] which was mentioned in the Times of Tunbridge Wells.^[5] Lonehexagon (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lonehexagon, please read WP:RS, as all four of the last sources you suggested are not reliable. Two are name mentions only, without detail. We do not use ISSU sources (see WP:RS). The other source is an interview. All four reference suggestions suggestions fail WP:RS, just as the article subject fails WP:GNG.104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does ISSU mean? I did not see that term in the page you linked to. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I checked and she does fail NRU so we're left with gng. I opened the new refs and they don't support gng, I opened a couple of the refs in the article itself to corroborate the rebut of the sources above and it appears correct. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ https://www.timeandleisure.co.uk/articles/interviews/5139-ellie-west-harlequins.html ^ https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-38727562.html ^ https://www.timeandleisure.co.uk/articles/interviews/5139-ellie-west-harlequins.html ^ http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/residents/news/website-news-articles/2016/october/love-where-we-live-awards-ceremony ^ https://issuu.com/one-media/docs/times_of_tunbridge_wells_19th_octob/4

• Weak keep There are no women's leagues listed in the notability essay and there are no citations to support "fully professional" which is odd. This athlete plays "top level of women's rugby union in England", Women's Premiership. Re: statements about references failing WP:RS, when I search for "interview" or "Issu" on WP:RS, there are no results. Perhaps, you meant something else. Primary sources are ok for supporting information. Hmlarson (talk) 23:17, 26 February 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. Unanimous consensus to delete, salting Alex Shih (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Datari Turner[edit]

Datari Turner (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)

Sigh, here we are again. Paid promotional piece of a borderline notable subject that tried again at AfC. This is just a CV that exists to promote the subject. He is borderline notable at best. When Wikipedia is the most significant coverage you have ever received (as it is in this case), then you should not have an article, even if you can afford to pay for one. If anything, the current version makes even less of a claim to being halfway important as the original version deleted a few months back. No reason to keep it this time around either. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - page already deleted before. Twice, even. Adding speedy deletion under WP:G4 and recommending a block of the creator. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is eligible for G4 because the draft was an independent page history and is significantly different from the previous deleted versions. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I still believe this falls under G4 as it is using the same name as the previous 6 pages, and has dependent page history (albeit the older del. version is in strikeout). Besides, a speedy delete gets this over with quicker, right? Kirbanzo (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No harm this going through AfD now that it is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but let's leave the speedy delete there in case an admin thinks G4 applies. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wasn't aware Joe was an admin. I apologize. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Tony just beat me to nominating. This article has been deleted and recreated six times, representing an astonishing seven year campaign by the subject to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. The last AfD was less than three months ago, and it has been salted after the last two deletions, and yet here we are again. That a paid editor has ignored the community consensus and pushed it through AfC is unfortunately not surprising – after all his paycheck depends on it. But Turner was not notable last time and he isn't notable now. The sources added are the same mix of low quality advertorials, promotional interviews, and trivial mentions that we saw last time. I'm not sure what the best way to stop yet more volunteer time being wasted on this is—salting the article, salting the draft, a TBAN for JacobPace—but whatever it is, we should do it. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 6 times over 7 years?! This is worse than I thought. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would definitely appreciate more input on this discussion by other users on Wikipedia. I'm not really sure what I did wrong here. This article was created and submitted as I was told to without directly setting it live in the mainspace. JacobPace (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do, keep Wikipedia:Canvassing in mind.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Subject fails WP:NBIO so we deleted it - and paid editors recreated it several times. If you are a paid editor, I recommend you disclose it, but if you are unpaid, please refrain from creating pages that have already been deleted. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kirbanzo, no offense, but you really need to look at the situation before commenting. JacobPace has declared a connection in multiple places, including the article talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Newbie mistake. Sorry. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't understand, Kirbanzo. He is the creator of several notable TV shows and films. JacobPace (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue isn't the declared paid status, the issue is that the article only exist to promote the subject. Just because it is sent through AfC does not mean that it is not promotional, nor does it mean that the community will decide it is notable. The issues here are twofold: Jacob took on a client who has no place on Wikipedia because he isn't important enough, and the article is only a CV that tells is minor facts about a non-notable biography in order to make the subject seem important. Those are individually good reasons for deletion, regardless of following the TOU. Re: creation of notable things: notability isn't inherited. The question is the subject himself, not what he has touched. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Couldn't have said it better myself. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JacobPace: No doubt you were told that, as a paid editor, you have to put any new articles through AfC. But who told you it would be a good idea to recreate Datari Turner? The fact that a dozen or so editors have previously agreed that he isn't a suitable for inclusion ought to have been a hint that it wasn't wise. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Joe Roe: Makes sense. This was just an effort to keep the client happy but sure, this makes sense after seeing the consensus here. My question is this: if paid contribution is allowed yet 'promotional pieces' are not, what is the solution to that? Is a paid contribution not promotional in nature? Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @JacobPace: You know, I don't think I've ever heard a more succinct explanation of why paid editing shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (edit conflict × 2) - reading through the article, I fail to see any information on this person which confers notability to our usual standards, seemingly WP:NBIO in this case, perhaps more specifically WP:NMODEL or WP:FILMMAKER. Notability is not inherited nor can it be purchased. Well, okay, it can be purchased, but not in this manner. I applaud the author's efforts to do all the right things but unfortunately some topics are simply not suitable for the encyclopedia, and this individual is one of them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - More or less a re-tread of my comment from the second AfD applied to more-or-less a re-tread of the last incarnation of this article. Fails WP:NBIO and most importantly WP:NOTINHERITED. Take this sentence for example "In 2007, Turner was the spokesmodel for Jay-Z's clothing line, Rocawear." Lines like these are clearly intended to draw a thread of notability between notable subjects and Datari Turner. Given that this article has been deleted 6 times (with the implication that Turner of some other organization desperately wants him to have a Wikipedia article), let me recommend that we end this farce with a dose of salt and prevent this article from being re-created in perpetuity.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was a bit cautious while reviewing this draft as I went through all the previous discussions and controversies. I suggested the creator to fix the copyright issues as well. Besides, I requested Primefac to un-salt it so it can be approved. All because it seems to pass WP:GNG now. I think we would have treated the subject differently if it would not have paid influence on it. However, the subject of the article and its creator trying desperately for their Wikipedia article should not affect our assessment in general. Neither its previous deletions should affect our views. At the moment, the subject has significant coverage in secondary and reliable sources like Hollywood Reporter. And that is why I approved it. Just wanted to explain my intention behind approving it. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we should treat it differently: it helps inform promotional intent, which is the whole point of the disclosure process: to see if it violates our policies, which we know it does, see WP:NOTSPAM. The GNG doesn’t matter, as N required passage of NOT as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTSPAM. Sometimes, it becomes hard to arrive at an objective assessment. One policy advocates something and then other something else. Thank you for the information though. I am more educated now :) Dial911 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- For goodness sake, we the English writing Wikipedians of the world decided that this article was not notable a mere three months ago. I believe that we should drop the stick and bury it under a mountain of salt along with the poor overly beaten dead horse. -- Dolotta (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of course – this is a paid advertisement and Wikipedia does not allow advertisement. Oh, and the person isn't notable either – where is the in-depth coverage in substantial reliable sources (not the Hollywood Reporter for sure, that's just a reprint of a press-release, also reprinted by Variety)? Dial911 has clearly acted thoughtfully and completely in good faith, so I don't want to criticise; but this could have been declined as "what Wikipedia is not". If all AfC reviewers routinely declined promotional articles submissions on those grounds we'd have fewer of these discussions, and could perhaps get on with improving our encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, I triggered a fuss by approving it. I am sorry for that. Dial911 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dial911, I don't think you should be – you made the call that you thought was right at the time, and that's all any of us can hope to do. You were perhaps not as familiar with the history of this editor as some us are. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dial911, this is a subject that led to an ArbCom case which got an admin desysoped, which is why there are so many people commenting on an obscure biography AfD. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers, you weren't aware of the history and that you'd likely be triggering another AfD with a bit of drama. Just in the future remember that WP:N also requires passage of WP:NOT in addition to the GNG. Make it a learning experience . TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, Lesson learnt. Will not forget to check for WP:NOT besides GNG. Thank you . Dial911 (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place for people to engage in self-promotion. It is not a web hosting service. It is an encyclopedia, where we only cover notable subjects. Turner fails all applicable notability guidelines and the continued attempts to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy delete Blatantly promotional material.TH1980 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - re-adding speedy delete under WP:G11 due to concerns over eligbility for said criteria being raised. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Admin thought otherwise about WP:G11 eligibility (don't know why, a lot of people agree it is a case), so speedy delete was removed. Still strongly recommend deletion. May re-add later. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck second vote by Kirbanzo. Kirbanzo please allow the AfD to run its course, it seems the a snow delete is likely, no need for unseemly haste.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only wanting haste as this is just the latest of several times this article has been deleted over seven years. I want this over with as soon as possible as this is basically a WP:SALT argument at this point. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT. Speedy deleting at this point is not a strong enough solution. A nice long vote will seal this off from recreation. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt My tuppence worth. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 19:25, 23 February 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! 19:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cavan Cunningham[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An actor is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he's had roles — having roles is the job description, so if all an actor had to do was list roles then we'd have to keep an article about every actor who exists. What passes WP:NACTOR, rather, is not the list of roles itself, but the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to show that he received enough media coverage for the having of roles to clear WP:GNG — but two of the three sources here just namecheck his existence a single time in coverage of the show, without containing enough content about him to contribute toward passing GNG, and the third source is his own self-published website. And as for the Gemini Awards, those were ensemble nominations for the entire cast, not nominations that singled him out for standalone recognition as a supporting or guest actor, so they're not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can reference a new article much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 25 February 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! 19:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Malcolm Sleight[edit]

Brendan Malcolm Sleight (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:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The BEM is one of the lower decorations in the UK [3] it is 36th out of 41 decorations so in itself I do not believe that is confers sufficient notabilty. All the sources are passing mentions or quotes from the subject in an official capacity Dom from Paris (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom from Paris Thanks for the message/prompt I been on holiday, just catching up. I know I have five days to respond, but I need a good hour to sit down and digest. I am quite new to this - so please bear with me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertonMoments (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Emmanuel has just been approved, another one of my new articles. Also has BEM - any hints and advice how I get this artcles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Malcolm_Sleight to the same standard ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertonMoments (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The BEM is certainly not sufficient alone to prove notability. We usually assume someone needs at least a CBE (three levels above) for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The BEM is not listed on the reference given - https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/56878/supplement/3351 BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11990088 gives a list a clearer explaination)
  • Better description https://www.gov.uk/honours/types-of-honours-and-awards
  • CBE are prominent but lesser role at national level,
  • Lots of non-CBEs listed such as OBE and MBE
  • service to the local community. (So hence not a notable as CBE), must have made a signifiant difference
• NB - I have also added https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Emmanuel Should this be marked for deletions, or deletion discussion ?
• Similar example from 2015 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Cutler
• Similar example from 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dazeley + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Rimmington
• From 2016 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonjo_Heuerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertonMoments (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rimmington is clearly notable as a footballer. The others, however, may well not meet notability standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• From local newspaper in Merton, I cross-referenced with other searches, including two national newspapers then used the full name in the article, although more search results are available as the shorter name. I note that some of my other articles have been change to use the short name (i am newbie). Which is the right way around - feedback welcome ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertonMoments (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We use common names for article titles. If the shortened name is the name by which the person is commonly known then that's what we use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I learned something - how do I change this (and others?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertonMoments (talk • contribs) 15:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Click on the move tab at the top of the article. But please note that people who have only local or minor significance like Sleight and Emmanuel are rarely notable enough for Wikipedia. See WP:BIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - first of all, the article is a stub - normally a stub doesn't warrant deletion but what's in the stub article doesn't constitute WP:GNG. Second, BEMs can be easy to get - pretty sure someone could get one just by helping people evacuate a building during a notable fire in Britain. Unless he has some truly noteworthy awards, this article should be slated for deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a point of info, the BEM hasn't been awarded for gallantry since 1974. The BEM is awarded for valuable services to the community, but less valuable (and often more local) than those for which the Order of the British Empire (MBE or higher) is awarded. Of course, this is terribly subjective, but it's still not notable enough for an article, any more than the MBE or OBE are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 28 February 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 Leonardo Padura Fuentes#Mario Conde books. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Havana Quartet[edit]

Havana Quartet (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)

• Deletion Starz declined to continue development on the series. A pilot was not filmed. There has been no further news on this project since its cancellation. Wikipedia is not a repository for ever single failed television project that never moved development. As it stands, not enough occurred with the project to make it notable enough to exist on Wikipedia and therefore it should be deleted. BoogerD (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No deletion The category Category:Unaired television programs “Unaired television programs“ exists and therefore there is no need to erase this article. It is also unknown if the programm is shopped elsewhere as Starz is not the owner to any rights here and therefore Entertainment One might shop it, we don't know jet.--Robberey1705 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @BoogerD: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 18:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Leonardo Padura Fuentes#Mario Conde books. This information about the TV development efforts is relevant to the book series whether it becomes an actual series or not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree now that a merge and redirect is probably the best option. The information is actually relevant to the books series and the author but it doesn't need its own page. BoogerD (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Leonardo Padura Fuentes#Mario Conde books as suggested by Arxiloxos. If the concept is picked up somewhere, it would be easy to split to a stand-alone article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the work has not been created and released. It is too soon to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read Leonardo Padura Fuentes#Mario Conde books? This namespace could redirect there because it's a phrase used to describe Padura's four Mario Conde novels, and there could reasonably be a brief mention that there was this interest in an English-language series. The mention could follow directly on from the fact that there is already a mini-series adaptation called Four Seasons in Havana. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:47, 23 February 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! 19:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Levinson[edit]

Dennis Levinson (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 county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Can only be sourced to local newspapers. Rusf10 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete saw this and thought, he's probably from New Jersey, and there's probably one newspaper article source about how he's running for office. And then I clicked on it. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Atlantic County, New Jersey#Government and politics Djflem (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete county executives are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect to Atlantic County, New Jersey to County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey - As the current, directly elected county executive of Atlantic County, Levinson has a credible claim of notability, but a rather thin article at this time to support such a claim. As the county executive for this entire century, he is a credible search term and a merge of any relevant content to the article for the county would be -- and should have been from the start -- the appropriate course of action here. Rusf10 (and JPL) are both well aware that WP:Deletion Policy and WP:BEFORE all mandate consideration of alternatives to deletion, which has been systematically ignored here and in other, similar articles. Per policy "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." I look forward to an explanation of why redirect or merge were never considered as options up front and why none of those participating here have reconsidered their blanket delete votes or explained why they have declined to do so. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a lack of notability. If I search for Dennis Levinson, I don't expect to be taken to the Atlantic County page. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why not to Atlantic County, New Jersey#Government and politics?Djflem (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, he's just not notable enough and alansohn's proposed redirect target is inappropriate. ATD does not mean nothing can be deleted. It simply means to consider alternatives to delete, not an alternative must be found. And it does not mean once someone suggests an alternative (no matter how poor it is), that deletion can no longer be considered. I can only think of one other user (besides alansohn) who takes ATD to such an extreme interpretation (and that person is no longer contributing). It really irks me that alansohn throws out these really poor redirect targets and then demands that every person who disagrees with him provides him with a personal explanation of why. It's not the first time.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why not to Atlantic County, New Jersey#Government and politics?Djflem (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an article about the county. Yes, there is one sentence about him there. He's not notable enough and if people actually do search for him, they're not going to learn much from that redirect. And when he's no longer in office one day, the redirect will still go there and at that time there will be nothing about him--Rusf10 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the creation of County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, this discussion is basically moot; note that I struck out my original merge / redirect arget above and replaced it with the new article that already serves the purpose. The material regarding Dennis Levinson has been effectively merged into the new article, with the addition of more history about the creation of the county executive form of government and the other individuals who have served in the position. Thanks to Djflem and all of those who have put up the good fight by working to expand and improve this encyclopedia! Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to better target: County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey.Djflem (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey
• Delete basically per nom. Healthy dose of WP:TOOSOON as well. Just not enough available at this time to establish notability. I also agree that the redirect suggested above is inappropriate, so a merge is the worst choice. Rockypedia (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I don't know if WP:TOOSOON applies, this article is 13 years old. But if deletion rules the day, at least a redirect to County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey as per Alansohn. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:27, 1 March 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! 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagatjit Industries Limited[edit]

Hagennos^Talk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagatjit Industries Limited (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 -- references are press releases or disguised press releases DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : A good number of references have been added to the page after the tag was added. Its a 70 year old company which has been listed on stock exchange and owns some popular liquor brands.Ackley aki (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : For reasons stated above. But the article needs some work and might have to many citationsFightforsocialjustice (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Delete One of the previous editors has stated that this company has been listed on the stock exchange and as such, I expect some analyst coverage of the company. I cannot find any. If somebody can find some analyst reports, I will change my !vote. The references to date are based on company announcements or interviews/quotations from company officers or mentions-in-passing. I'm of the opinion that this topic should meet the criteria but in the absence of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm leaning towards a delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find anything which will satisfy WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Hagennos^Talk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. In general, promo 'cruft -- no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Abdul Rahoof[edit]

Roshan Abdul Rahoof (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 reliable source found. His just work in only one film. And participated in Dance, where he won fourth prize. I don't see any notable things. Siddiqsazzad001 (Talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's WP:TOOSOON. The movie this actor has worked in hasn't even been released yet. It may be appropriate to have an article on this person in the future, but not yet. He does not yet meet WP:NOTE. A similar article on Priya Prakash Varrier was correctly deleted for similar reasons. --Yamla (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify According to WP:Draftify if the article is not notable AyaanLamar (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Reverted draftication and improper close by AyaanLamar and left talk message. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Yamla above, actor in one unreleased film fails WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NACTOR with four months still for the movie to release. MT Train^Discuss 18:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G5. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G5 --Hagennos^Talk 05:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one unrelased film ATK55 talk 06:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another article about a non-notable connected to this particular film. Above comments have it right, although I suspect some WP:PROMO also.and his one movie is in production and not yet released. this topic can be notable after release of the movie. 119.30.32.139 (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Is there no end to the number of articles created TOOSOON in relation to this film? - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 26 February 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. The problem with the "delete" arguments is, by and large, they assert WP:BLP1E without going into any further depth, and several were challenged by the "keep" arguments without follow-up. Therefore, I have to conclude the latter have made the strongest position. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Hogg (activist)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

David Hogg (activist) (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)

Yet another student survivor of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting speaking up, not distinctly notable per WP:BLP1E. There is also a Wikipedia:Systemic bias issue at hand - Mass fatality events of the same magnitude in Asia and Africa often don't have articles at all or come up for AfD while this is 4th or 5th spin off article from the shooting article (which is not particularly long) from one news-cycle. Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note – the page David Hogg was moved to David Hogg (US politician) to "make room" for this David Hogg, a controversial and not discussed move. CookieMonster755✉ 16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I moved the page to David Hogg (activist) and converted to DAB due to undiscussed move. CookieMonster755✉ 16:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had moved the pages around based on pageviews; the US congressperson Hogg was only getting <10 pageviews per day, but there were 4000+ in one day, presumably in search of David Hogg the activist. But I am fine with the DAB as it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not so sure about some of the other articles on other survivors but this one is most definitely notable, with the subject being extensively covered in reliable sources [4]. As far as the nom's claim that "systemic bias" applies because we don't have articles on mass murders at schools in Asia and Africa (maybe because they don't happen like they do in US), it's not. Iit's actually a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which invalidates the rationale put forth by the nom (and frankly, it's a silly argument).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.Keep As with Emma Gonzalez, sources given in the article clearly indicate significant coverage and WP:NTEMP applies. On the other hand, any claims of lasting notability are speculative and WP:CRYSTAL equally applies. At this point in time, however, all we can say is that there is no notability independent of the Stoneman shooting, and the content should be merged there. Since I wrote that, further coverage means that this person has entered the national political debate and independent notability is now established. While some reactions from right-wing politicians indicate a desire to wish these students into the cornfield, we follow the sources and there is clearly significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E where the subject is notable only because of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. His role in the shooting does not appear to be substantial, and it is also too early to tell if the coverage is extensive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, his role in the shooting is irrelevant. The subject does not meet each (in other words all) of the criteria required for WP:BLP1E to apply.- MrX 🖋 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with numerous reliable independent references which discuss him in-depth such as here and here and here and here and here. WP:BLP1E does not apply here because there are several angles here: (1) surviving the shooting (2) becoming a gun-control advocate (3) helping to form the group Never Again MSD (4) going to Tallahassee to advocate for gun control to state legislators. The BLP1E says If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event but the school shooting is over -- now Hogg has become a student leader of an activism campaign -- clearly a second event. Hogg is getting consistent national and international attention and easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – let's examine what is being put on the shelf here. Mainly, WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. If we take a look at WP:GNG, it states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when certain conditions apply. This condition includes the following: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content – based on the sources that Tomsulcer provide, the sources in the article and outside sources, there are several articles that discuss this subject in depth. He does meet this criteria for a stand alone article. All sources that are discussing him and his work in depth are reliable. The second thing we must examine is WP:BLP1E. His notability initially came from his status as a survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, but now includes his work for gun control advocacy after the shooting took place. Now we beg the question, is the shooting and its aftermath a different event from the coverage and discussion regarding 2018 gun control advocacy – though these events are related, are they considered two different events? Well, let's look at BLP1E. It states Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met – the first condition is If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Does David Hogg, in which articles discuss him, only feature him on the context of a single event? It seems, based on several factors, that the 2018 gun control advocacy and the shooting at MSD are separate events. Reliable sources discuss his role in both of these events, focusing on the latter and his involvement in gun control advocacy. The second criteria is If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Based on reliable sources, it is unlikely that David Hogg will become a low-profile individual based on his work in the 2018 gun advocacy movement following the MSDHS shooting. Based on factoring of these criteria, I support a weak keep. We can always examine notability at a later time. Wikipedia is not in a rush to delete, create or re-create articles if needed. CookieMonster755✉ 17:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll repeat what I said on the AfD for Gonzalez--"Really a poster child for BLP1E, were it not for her continued involvement in the protests that followed the event. 'Keep, certainly for now, and if this is to be merged the content should not be deleted. BTW, Never Again MSD might be a better target for a merge, unless Mr. Icewhiz wants to nominate that also for deletion." Drmies (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never Again passed an AfD and would be a good merge/redirect target for all these BLP1E student speakers who are not notable for anything besides speaking as part of the organization.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:SIGCOV. WP:BLP1E is not applicable. If the content were to be merged anywhere, I agree with Drmies that Never Again MSD would be the appropriate target.- MrX 🖋 18:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Never Again MSD - There's nothing particularly notable about David in particular that warrants him having a separate article from the group as a whole. No other mass shooting has spawned so many spinoff articles for individual people connected to it. WP:SIGCOV certainly seems applicable, but Never Again MSD already exists and can serve as a place to consolidate this article, the one about Emma Gonzalez, etc.- PrimaPrime (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is decided to merge this article, it certainly should be merged with Never Again MSD and not at the shooting page. CookieMonster755✉ 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - the notability of the subject isn't just to do "activism" (sic). It's also due to the fact that he's been subject of conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - That's how I found who he is and what happened quickly and concisely. This is a historic event and he is going to become a historic figure so why delete it if you'd have to restore it later anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.173.131.50 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Never Again MSD. He isn't notable as a person, only for his involvement in this organization. Natureium (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he's also notable for being a subject of conspiracy theories, including those "liked" by Donald Trump Jr.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Given the meteoric climb of this person from unknown to famous, and the fact that MSD students occupy the front pages of every major news outlet in the world... let's wait a bit and see. Also, in terms of the nominator's claim about "mass fatality events" and Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it is important to note that mass shooting in schools occur consistently and repeatedly only in the USA. Africa and Asia do not have a fifty year history of students being regularly shot in school, so Wikipedia:Systemic bias does not apply. The List of school shootings in the United States is a testament to this unique problem. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC) 104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge - This individual hasn't done anything besides start conspiracy theories and push the agenda of the alt-left. He isn't a politician, he is just simply someone riding off this publicity. If he continues to do more in the upcoming years as an actual politician, then sure, give him an article. As of right now it isn't needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.161.132.251 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — 107.161.132.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This IP's only edit has been to this deletion discussion. CookieMonster755✉ 23:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The aftermath of the shooting is the same event as the shooting. If he still plays a significant role in an important gun-control group in a year's time, he will likely be notable then, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. "Being a subject of conspiracy theories" is an atrocious reason to suggest this person is a public figure or notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power~enwiki, you regularly make claims like the one you made above - "textbook example of BLP1E". These comments always leave me shaking my head, and wondering what you think BLP1E says. If Hogg's article is a "textbook example" of BLP1E, it should be trivial for you to explain how it is a "textbook example". It should be trivial for you to include quotes from BLP1E that show it is a "textbook example". Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point here, as this is obviously going to be kept. single event - as I say above, the aftermath is a single event. a low-profile individual - considering the person is a minor who was (arguably) forced at gunpoint into the public eye less than two weeks ago, I feel obliged to assume they will remain a low-profile individual. individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented - I refuse to believe that personal attacks by the like of Alex Jones can make his role substantial. I note that the continuing coverage makes a keep more reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge WP:BLP1E. The amount of coverage, though, could make WP:IAR prominent here. I'd prefer a merge. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or Merge I prefer a merge. There's a lot of content, just not enough to make it's own article. Yes, this is BLP1E, but this is Wikipedia. I think WP:IAR applies here. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear case of WP:BLP1E and WP:RECENTISM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E only applies if all three criteria are met, including whether "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Hogg is currently the subject of a cover article in the NYTimes examining the Youtube conspiracy about him. Google News, when searched with the terms ("david hogg" and Stoneman) returns 63,000 results. These are the hallmarks of a high profile individual. BLP1E is clearly NOT met. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hogg is widely covered in relation to the shooting and students speaking up after the shooting. There is nothing to indicate that these students won't fade back to obscurity once this is out of the newscycle. Having doubts expressed on whether you are a real person is if at all a WP:V issue (though it seems these are widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory) - not a sign of WP:N (if at all a contrary sign).Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what crystal ball are you using to be so sure that "There is nothing to indicate that these students won't fade back to obscurity"?104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The specific policy on bios - WP:ONEEVENT. There is no reason to discuss this individual not in the scope of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting or Never Again MSD.Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intense media coverage about the subject and other MSD students is not solely about the shooting anymore- it is about gun control in the USA, government inaction and the influence of the NRA. Hogg, like the other students speaking out, has a message which deals with three things: 1. our friends were shot, and we want it not to happen again, 2. gun laws in the USA need to change, and 3. these students, including Hogg, will take an active part in changing the gun laws. That is not a single event or item of interest-- it is multiple items. Witness the large CNN town hall special last night devoted to gun control issues. it was not a memorial to the shooting, it was a discussion of gun control. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E do not apply. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The situation as it is happening is making him significant. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply if the person is unlikely to return to a low profile, and the presence of conspiracy theories surrounding him makes it likely he is going to continue to be in the spotlight. Either way, there is significant coverage of him outside of surviving a school shooting. Acebulf (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply. Is likely to remain in the spotlight for a long time, and Impact is clear. Plenty of good relaible sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:CRYSTALBALL does not allow us to speculate whether someone is "likely to remain in the spotlight for a long time." Right now, we have to decide based on the subject's current level of notability. In a years' time, if David and Emma have established themselves as reasonably well-known activists who are independently-notable from the existing group (Never Again MSD), then the articles can be written then. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a news source. Just because someone has a lot of coverage now in primary sources, it doesn't mean they'll have staying power worthy of an encyclopedia, which relies a lot on secondary sources. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable individual. If the individual still is involved significantly on a national scale in a year with gun control, certainly we should reconsider. WP:CrystalBall prohibits us from looking into the future to determine future notability. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that WP:BLP1E does not apply in this case as in so many cases before. WP:CrystalBall arguments also don't because the notable events and reliable source coverage have already happened.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's obvious that the articles about David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, and Never Again MSD are trying to leverage Wikipedia's high visibility to promote them rather than including whatever information about them in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article their actual notability, such as it is, would justify, and perhaps creating pages with those names to redirect to the main shooting article. I'm frankly disgusted by this. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. – Athaenara ✉ 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AGF?- MrX 🖋 18:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Established editors are editing these pages - not some SPA. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, or merge to Never Again MSD. After following the news and then reading the article, it seems conclusive to me that this doesn't constitute a BLP1E. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While not an official reason for keeping or deleting, this article is getting 6000 pageviews in one day, that is, deleting it would be depriving these readers of information they're seeking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have a fundamental choice to make here. We delete this article and let Everipedia take the lead, and be what Wikipedia used to be at the peak of its success. Or we keep this article and let this article grow (by following our quality standards when it goes to referencing and writing, obviously). --Deansfa (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember a debate around an Infowars reporter recently (was it Owen Shroyer?) who has a substantial page on Everipedia but was AfD'd here. Don't think this is a valid reason to keep. Wikizenx (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't really understand why so many people want these articles deleted. These students, Hogg in particular, have gained so much notoriety with their activism, they are bound to be remembered. The aftermath, as in the reaction, from this shooting isn't like most mass shootings that have taken place. It's ignited a movement that doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. CloudKade11 (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it was clearly a big waste of time to nominate this so early. The appropriate time to look at it would have been in a month or two, or six. As it stands the AfD is no concensus, so why doesn't someone close this as such? 104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Not the time to close as no consensus. The discussion isn't over yet. _{Vermont | reply here} 11:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. With 16 keep !votes it is not going to be deleted. Whether it is closed as keep or no concensus if of little concern. the fact it is a clear keep (but might not be in a few months, which would be the appropriate time to AFD) makes this discussion a waste of time.104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP, AND DON'T MOVE. He is notable, not for going to that high school, but for founding a long-needed anti schooting group. Several newspapers have articles specifically about him and how he's being harassed by right-wing goons--one is in today's Washington Post. His pic is in TWO separate articles today. Verdana♥Bold 11:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

Why did sine bot say I didn't sign this? I used 4 tildies like this: Verdana♥Bold 11:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Verdana Bold: can we please refrain from unrelated political judgements (right-wing goons, long-needed anti schooting group)? Our job here is to decide if he is notable enough for an article. Thanks. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With the sourcing available, and things like full page stories specifically dedicated to the subject continuing to pop up in places like WaPo, it's pretty hard to argue that there isn't enough available to write a neutral and well sourced article, which is the central question behind the spirit of notability. Also... for whatever it's worth, SYSTEMICBIAS is not a rationale for deleting coverage of Western topics; it's a rationale for increasing coverage of non-Western ones. Using it in this way is a little bit like saying we should combat housing discrimination in the US by foreclosing on as many middle class white families as possible, which obviously misses the point of why housing discrimination is a problem to begin with. GMG^talk 12:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:SIGCOV per WP:HEY. Hogg's actions in the last week and the resulting publicity and reporting support, in my opinion, that this is not WP:BLP1E. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is involved in enough controversies and incidents to render him cross-referentially notable.Williamsdoritios (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a matter of historical importance (see: the number of companies that have stopped supporting the NRA due to his, and the other activists', efforts). I would say he is relevant enough. (LahmacunKebab (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete or Merge - WP:BLP1E. Many other survivors of school shootings who have had substantial coverage at the time do not have their own pages. Bias towards one view, not notable in his own right. 62.31.81.43 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — 62.31.81.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This user's only edit is this discussion. Acebulf (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, new static IP address. 62.31.81.43 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what your previous IP address was? It would certainly alleviate any SPA impropriety claims that could be brought forth. Acebulf (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He must mean dynamic IP, as static IPs don't change (often).104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the 85.211.* subnet - last one I can see is 85.211.232.136. In retrospect, would be good to merge to a page for all survivors, then should he become notable for any other reason in the future, maybe look at an individual article. 62.31.81.43 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.81.43 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Excellent points made by others in favor of keeping. The points convincingly counter the arguments made by those in favor of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronpoley (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep vastly more notable than the many pages on pageant winners. The subject continues to get media attention as part of the gun control debate. His organization has 134,000 facebook followers in a week and these students are not going to drop off the radar any time soon. Legacypac (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The wealth of detail within the media coverage, exemplified by [as of this writing] 33 appended inline cites, makes subject notable by definition. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- at this point, the subject meets WP:ENT of sorts: 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He is also the subject of significant conspiracy theories, a role in Never Again MSD, etc. Sufficient for a "keep" at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a very relevant article on a student who started an anti-gun-deaths organization and is being covered by many news media. Deleting the article doesn't help potential readers very much. WP:BLP1E would not apply here because he is likely to have continued notability as the leader of a high visibility organization. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tons of media coverage. Isseubnida (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The individual should be mentioned in the article about the event. He is a classic example of someone that becomes short-term famous for one event. We don't know if anyone will know who is he one year from now, much less then years from now. He doesn't meet any of the requirements to have a Wikipedia article written about him. The article should be merged.--2601:2C6:C000:312:550B:89BF:71C2:4A73 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• the Nom is the only one canvassing here by slapping an AfD tag on a high traffic article. That is sure to attract new editors to the discussion and I welcome them. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete: given the recency of the attack, WP:BLP1E, and our standing policy on WP:Recentism, I'd be in favor of merging all the articles regarding this subject (including Never Again MSD, Emma Gonzalez, Cameron Kasky, et al.) with reactions to the Stoneman Douglas shooting, until and unless the activism shown by these young individuals is sustained; a deletion would also be acceptable, so long as the information here would be noted in some form on the main article. Javert2113 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meteoric media rise. 290k twitter followers, interviewed with Anderson Cooper. Called out politicians demanding action in a live stream during the shooting. If this isn't notable, or a first, I don't know what is. javi (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As he is a founding member of an organisation, it makes him a notable enough figure to have an article. Also as per above arguments. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is notable as a co-founder of a national movement and as a gun control advocate. He has gotten widespread coverage in major publications in the United States and United Kingdom. He has been interviewed by major news networks. The movement he co-founded is planning a national march that has been funded by major public figures. JJMM (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable and likely to be increasingly so. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is employing WP:CRYSTAL we don't know if he's likely to be notable in the future or not 13:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I said he is already notable. His likely future additional notability is just a perk. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Notability already on the decline, less press coverage of the tragedy now and other things entering the news cycle. Think this one is WP:BLP1E and WP:Recentism Wikizenx (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BLP1E applies here and his "notability" is already waning. In the end, if you subtract anything stemming from the fact that he happened to be present at the shooting, you are left with absolutely nothing. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? All this news coverage is only one event? Not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes seriously. I was quite clear: "if you subtract anything stemming from the fact that he happened to be present at the shooting, you are left with absolutely nothing.". Everything stems from one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think the important thing is there's nothing that makes him stand out in any way individually from the others also involved in the movement. Wikizenx (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Survived shooting. Spoke up. Conspiracy theory about him being a crises actor, some more interviews. So you saw him all week in the media - and there is no particular reason why would continue to be featured.Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. He's (1) a survivor (2) a leader/organizer of Never Again MSD (3) accused of being a "crisis actor" (4) numerous appearances on TV with Anderson Cooper etc (5) calling for a boycott of NRA-associated firms (which appears to be working) (6) calling for a boycott of spring break Florida tourism. All this is BLP1E? Hogwash.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, ONEEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been 12 days since the shooting. Everything that he's done so far has been related to the one event / cause which is adequately covered in the Wiki page that is dedicated to that cause. [redacted] Wikizenx (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great -- [redacted] --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP1E does not apply, because criteria 2 and 3 are not met. In addition, the subject is not a LOWPROFILE person. Even yesterday, he appeared in an interview with Jake Tapper, chatting with Dan Rather. He is already notable. If news coverage declines, he will still be notable as explained in WP:NOTTEMPORARY. By the way, his notability is not about his role in the shooting; it's about his role as a co-leader of a nationwide movement that has garnered international attention, and the vile attacks by the far-right, including conspiracy theories and death threats. - MrX 🖋 17:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the unusually extensive media coverage of him as an individual were not prima facie evidence of notability, the conspiracy theorists' coverage and responses to that would have put him over the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Emma González's page was removed from AfD / Merge discussion and I think that David Hogg's page should be treated equitably. While Emma is probably more of the visual poster child for this student movement, Hogg and others are just as notable as leaders and organizers. So I say keep. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has grown to be notable in his own right.216.15.17.192 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 216.15.17.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely one of the more well known of the survivors of the shooting. He is notable beyond the shooting since he has had conspiracy theories levied against him, and he is a leader of the #NeverAgain movement. He and Emma Gonzalez are definitely some of the more notable names and I believe they deserve to have their own pages. Cssiitcic (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with others Hogg does have more notability than his compatriots with the exception of Emma Gonzalez, but are we really to believe that they will all be notable beyond this news cycle? Simply guessing at this time is pointless. We don't know where they will be 3 months from now, with all of them heading off to college soon its likely we won't hear from them again. Most of the information in their biographies pertains to the event and the shooting details/aftermath. Merging would be the best way to preserve this information in case they branch off in the future and regain more notoriety outside of victim status and media appearances. If we don't apply the same standards to all the victims who spoke out then we will be left with repetitive biographies shaped by a singular event.100.33.114.169 (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point, I think most of the arguments that are going to be made have been made and that it is evident that the article will be kept. As such, I would humbly suggest the possibility of WP:SNOWBALLING the discussion. As I have made my opinions clear earlier, I will not be the one doing so, however, and given the nature of the debate, I don't think non-admine closure would be wise. Acebulf (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment here is an article on Hogg that really points to how he has become a spokeperson in his own right. Parkland’s David Hogg Just Devastated The NRA With One Stunning Blow. And here is an article talking about how he is receiving death threats. Go into Google news and you will get pages of results, two weeks after the shooting. Why are we still discussing if he merits a page? The kid is internationally famous a hundred times over. Even if he disappears tomorrow, he will forever be mentioned in the context of school shootings and gun activism in the USA. Once notable, always notable. I assume good faith of the editors above, but I am starting to wonder if the reaction to second amendment issues is what is keeping this discussion going. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Without the notability of all of the articles and media attention, I would certainly argue this would be part of WP:BLP1E, but due to the media attention and vast number of references, I think the article is sufficiently notable. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- massive coverage. The young man not only has come forward as a notable spokesman, but he was been targeted by a hate campaign, for doing so. Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Single event, not news, soapboxing. What's to like? Anmccaff (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He should promote himself on his own webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4201:37DD:A448:6326:C00A:6F5C (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 2601:586:4201:37DD:A448:6326:C00A:6F5C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable in his own right by now. If Zoe Quinn is notable, so is David. --Volvlogia (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classic case of Fake news. Jamalcrao (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)— Jamalcrao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • @Jamalcrao: What do you mean by fake news? Acebulf (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jamalcrao: Given the sources and attributions for this article, it is not fake news. This is an objectively false and incorrect reason to argue for deletion. Cssiitcic (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has been banned for sockpuppetry. Acebulf (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He's been in the news for a mere two weeks -- and on top of that, only for reacting to the shooting. That is maybe sufficient justification for a blurb somewhere, but is not one for a standalone article. However, the ongoing reaction to the shooting (debate, possible new laws/restrictions/regulations) is admittedly one of the more distinctive parts of this incident, and Hogg plays a significant role within that aspect. Over the next couple weeks, it's possible that his notability could move beyond WP:1E, by becoming a sustained activist over a period of time (principally unconnected from the incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS). In order to balance the potential that he'll just be washed out in the next news cycle against that of premature deletion, I think that the article should stand as-is for several weeks. I propose to close this AfD "without prejudice" so it can be reopened in several weeks. If nothing's really changed by then, I would merge this article, and those of Cameron Kasky and Emma González, into Never Again MSD. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is a "without prejudice" rationale for closing an AfD. See WP:CLOSEAFD. Relevant ones seem to be no consensus, keep, delete, merge, draftify, speedy delete etc. Away, "without prejudice" is pretty much the same as no consensus.104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His name has been circulating the news, even in the Netherlands. I needed background information on him and was able to find everything I was looking for on this page. Isn't this the sole purpose of wikipedia? 🖋 16:43, 28 February 2018 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.207.217.20 (talk) — 84.207.217.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Persistent coverage that is unlikely to end soon, passes gng. There's precedent with Emma González being kept. GuzzyG (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep He has persistent coverage, plus he will be debating Alex Jones soon which will only increase his profile.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hogg has backed out of this debate. 62.31.81.43 (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There's a degree of WP:CRYSTAL in arguing that coverage will go on into the future but I'm more inclined to believe that it well continue based on the CNN interview he did with Dan Rather. We can always revisit if that doesn't happen.LM2000 (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara L. Wegener[edit]

Barbara L. Wegener (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 real evidence of notability, has published a single novel as far as I can find. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any signficant coverage in third party sources, and she has only published one novel. Cait.123 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing against retired teachers — but the publisher of Cara's Forgiveness turns out to be WestBow Press, a self-publishing service. One self-published book is not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, and no other evidence of notability is available. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a self-published author from Florida like Wegener but I have 23 books for sale at Amazon. Three of which got to #1 best seller status in a book subcategory. That said, I'm not a notable author and neither is Wegener. She's an author but there is no proof of her being notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article is completely unsourced and it would be difficult to source it. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My searches failed to find anything on author or her first novel. Fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article lacks any sources, which is a clear violation of policy in the case of a biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Has written one non-notable book. Fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 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! 19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GuHu Media[edit]

GuHu Media (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)

References consist of self-published or dead links. Quick online search found nothing else to verify notability. London Hall (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As always, every organization is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists — to earn one, it has to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in sources independent of itself, to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. But that's not what the sources here are showing — with the exception of one published journal article, it's referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself, and even the journal article was written by two professors at the same university, so even its authors can't credibly claim to be fully independent of this program either. This is not how you source something like this as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 26 February 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! 19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maamaankam (2018 film)[edit]

Maamaankam (2018 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)

Crystalballing Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Probable case of WP:G11. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Project confirmed by reliable sources and principal photography started, thus will pass WP:NFF

• [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/mammootty-hurt-during-mamankam-shoot/articleshow/62971229.cms Mammootty hurt during 'Mamankam'

shoot?]

• Mammootty injured on Mamankam sets
• സിനിമയുടെ ഷൂട്ടിംഗിനിടെ മമ്മൂട്ടിക്ക് പരിക്ക്
• സിനിമ മാമാങ്കത്തി​െൻറ ചിത്രീകരണത്തിനിടെ മമ്മൂട്ടിക്ക്​ പരിക്ക്​
  Anish Viswa 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC

First schedule of Maamaankam (2018 film) beginned at mangalapuram as can be referenced here , here and here . Yourmistake (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected formatting errors introduced by Yourmistake --Hagennos^Talk 16:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A film which has not yet been released. The only claim of notability is the injury sustained by an actor of the film, but notability is not inherited. Also can be deleted under WP:G11 --Hagennos^Talk 16:41, 26 February 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)} 13:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irmgard Kärner[edit]

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

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

Notability not established, existing sources do not satisfy WP:GNG requirement for significant coverage. It's mostly tables from competition results. The two news-looking articles recently added only mention Irmgard Karner once each; that's not enough to build a verifiable article on. -- intgr [talk] 13:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irmgard Karner was German women's chess champion (source: http://www.teleschach.de/damen/bremen1964.htm) and played in three chess Olympiads for West Germany (source: http://www.olimpbase.org/playersw/ms884ywg.html). This level chess player has responded for English Wikipedia notability requirements.--Uldis s (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, The article passes notability guidelines for a chess player. Despite not being a chess grandmaster, she belongs to ancient era in the 19th century so the biography is worth notable in this case. Abishe (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contrary to what the nominator says, winning a national championship and appearing in three Olympiads does establish notability for a chess player.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pawnkingthree and Abishe: These are not actually addressing the nomination at all, nor are you citing any policy/guideline to support your claim. Deletion discussions should consist of policy-based arguments (WP:CLOSEAFD); simply asserting that the subject is notable does not make it so. WP:GNG, the main notability guideline, requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, so that a verifiable article can be written. As stated in the nomination, such sources haven't been demonstrated, thus the article is unverifiable and not demonstrated to be notable. -- intgr [talk] 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm addressing the nomination. It is likely that a chess player who has won a national championship and appeared in international competition has generated coverage to satisfy GNG. The problem is that for a West German player active in the 1960s they may be offline, and may not be in the English language. Currently unverified does not mean unverifiable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no idea what the chess notability guidelines are, but applying athlete notability guidelines it appears she would pass if the Chess Olympiad were a top-level international competition. We do presume notability for athletes in top-level competition. I'm not sure about chess notability guidelines, so I won't vote, but if there are guidelines which exist saying international competitors are presumed notable, I'd vote keep. There are also several mentions of her games in books and other secondary sources. I agree with the nominator there's not a lot of sources there, though. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deleting the article would turn blue links to red in German Chess Championship, 3rd Women's Chess Olympiad and 4th Women's Chess Olympiad. This would not help to build the web nor would it improve the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 23:54, 23 February 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.