< 22 June	24 June >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hip Abduction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND, not much has changed since 2016 AfD/speedy deletion. I attempted to PROD this under a somewhat IAR assumption that PRODing articles that were speedy deleted while an AfD was ongoing were eligible for PROD, but Finnusertop contested it so I am bringing it to AfD. W 42 23:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the name-dropping reminds me of the WP:GARAGE essay. No evidence of meeting any WP:BAND criteria. And Winner 42, in my opinion Finnusertop was wrong. An article that has survived AFD is ineligible for prod. It's OK to prod a new creation of a previously-deleted article, because there was no prior AFD discussion on the second creation of the article (although the policy isn't really clear on that point). You could have proposed speedy deletion WP:G4, instead of prodding it, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anachronist, the policy isn't crystal clear. All it says is: "It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD." But the PROD template seems to go with my interpretation because it alerted me about the previous AfD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is definitely not clear. I didn't nominate it for G4 because I'm not sure that G4 applies because the article wasn't "deleted via its most recent deletion discussion", it was speedy deleted around the discussion. Overall, the policy pages seem to ignore the possibility that AfDs are closed before a discussion has a chance to occur. W 42 11:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. They recently released a new single, so, yep. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG as of now. Dial911 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dunlop (politician)[edit]

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

I don't think a board member of the party is enough to meet WP:NPOL and more of the sources I found during a WP:BEFORE check were for a different Alan Dunlop Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any good references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like he qualifies for WP:NPOL. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You're correct that serving on a political party's internal organizational board is not an WP:NPOL pass in its own right — it's a thing that could still theoretically (but usually doesn't) get a person enough reliable source coverage to be kept on pure WP:GNG grounds, but not an automatic notability freebie that entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article in and of itself. But the references here are one primary source and one glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article whose subject is somebody else, which is not how you get a person over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject could, of course, have been independably notable himself, but all we have in sources is that he's the chair of a party that won 0.3% of the vote in the 2017 general election. I wonder who the table is. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Dial911 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Dancehall[edit]

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

There are a bazillion non-notable musical sub genres out there and this has no refs Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. 344917661X (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, and gives no reason to think that this subgenre is more notable than any other. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even 1 source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 30 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onuh Justus Izuchukwu[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)).

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

Non-notable author. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to meet wp:gng. Be aware that the Google scholar at first glance looks to merit him passing wp:nscholar. But those hits are for a different person of similar name (the first entry with 1322 cites was published the year this individual was born). So fails WP:NSCHOLAR, and nowhere near meets WP:NAUTHOR. Was declined at AfC, and then moved directly to the mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Umekaodo removed both the AfD notice from the article and most of the content from this discussion page. I have warned them not to do that. The same article appears to be duplicated at Izunwaonu, which has an interesting history. If this AfD is closed as delete, the other one should go as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. I was not impressed by the alleged GS profile [1] Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Both Izunwaonu and Onuh Justus Izuchukwu is the same person. I advice, do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinenyeugwu (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onuh Justus Izuchukwu also known as Izunwaonu is a Nigerian Public figure. Many of his works are not published online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinenyeugwu (talk • contribs) 05:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC) — Chinenyeugwu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete With extreme prejudice - the AfC decline was correct. Self promotional autobiography with nothing to support it.PRehse (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, it is open for people to edit With extreme prejudice - the AfC decline was correct but with time, people will upgrade and supply a reliable sources. It is not a Self promotional autobiography rather, this is what people say about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaat (talk • contribs) 08:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC) — Swaat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not Delete, it is open for people to edit on the process of providing more reliable sources for Onuh Justus IzuchukwuSwaat (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)striking duplicate vote! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After removing sources that do not mention the subject there is nothing left. The linked Google Scholar profile is larded with publications not by the subject, so clearly unreliable, but even if it were reliable it wouldn't demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF. We also don't have a pass of any other notability guideline. And the editing history of the two copies of this article appear to both be heavily promotional and in violation of our policies on use of multiple accounts. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:AUTHOR. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vere-Jones[edit]

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

A WP:BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I was unable to find any significant coverage. W 42 19:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The man has appeared in dozens of films and TV shows and has had the rare chance to work with Peter Jackson more than once. Although he's not very well known, he deserves a mention for the sheer longevity of his career and the projects he's been attached too. Sometimes a persons work speaks for itself. I think it's fair to say that he has a cult following, he appears in Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles and Braindead which are of course cult films.---Ducktech89 ^(talk)

But where is the GNG passing coverage? Seems like a minor actor who has held a lot of roles never attached much attention himself. Where is the evidence of a cult following? Just because you appear in cult films doesn't mean you have your own cult following. Sure Jones shows up in databases and has pages on wikis, but those are hardly evidence for a large personal fan base. W 42 14:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most reliable New Zealand journeyman actors of all time. He has cultivated a legacy on New Zealand TV and movies and has dabbled into American films as well. Sources can be easily found for this.---Ducktech89 ^(talk), 13:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in Children of Fire Mountain and Pictures satisfies WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Significant New Zealand actor. Easily meets criterion 1 at WP:NACTOR, and criterion 1 at WP:ANYBIO. The 1989 documentary and this radio interview between them are probably also enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 29 June 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. Anthony Appleyard has already speedy deleted the page per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GlennSamm[edit]

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

Previously deleted as Glenn samm HC7 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 23 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gilgunn[edit]

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

No indication of notability The Banner talk 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 1500-2000 people died in the Civil War. No indication that the subject here is any more notable than anyone else. With every respect, doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER (top-rank/etc). Nor WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL seems to apply. Guliolopez (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and does not establish any kind of notability. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2018
Delete. Concur with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 20:22, 29 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NickiHndrxx Tour[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a concert tour, which is predictably just a standard and routine list of the concert venues. As always, every concert tour does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NTOUR just because it happens to be a notable artist doing it -- tours become notable by being the subject of reliable source coverage in media, such as actual reviews of the concerts by real music journalists. But for a tour that isn't even starting for another three months, that type of content is impossible to provide yet -- so no prejudice against recreation in the fall once actual reliable sources are actually writing about it, but no artist's concert tours are ever entitled to already have an unsourced "list of venues, the end" article in advance of sufficient media coverage about the tour to get it over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A collaboration tour by two mainstream artists, Nicki Minaj and Future promoting two albums with approved wikipedia articles, Queen and Hndrxx, is pretty notable. I think the only problem is that the article for the tour isn't developed enough as it is which is weird because there's tons of articles about it. i don't think it should be deleted but it should be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.52.82 (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some sources:

96.227.141.184 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Straight from the A" and StubHub are not reliable or notability-supporting sources, and while Now is, that source doesn't establish anything that counts as passage of an WP:NTOUR criterion. "Has sources in it" is not all that a tour article has to do to pass NTOUR or escape deletion — kindly note that NTOUR distinguishes between sources that show "notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms", which are valid support for notability, and "sources that merely establish that a tour happened", which are not. For comparison's sake, The Tragically Hip undertook dozens of concert tours over the course of their career, but just two of them actually have Wikipedia articles: the multi-artist festival bill they staged three times in the 1990s, and the one that left such a uniquely gargantuan imprint on Canadian history (free hint, dude was dying) that the lead singer actually beat out the Prime Minister for Canadian Newsmaker of the Year status two years in a row. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. 344917661X (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:TOOSOON. Article can be recreated once the tour starts and more sources become available. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:24, 24 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Taj[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, and per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Unsuccessful past congressional candidate who doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for political office — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. And candidates do not get a WP:GNG pass that exempts them from WP:NPOL just because some campaign coverage exists, either, because some campaign coverage always exists for every candidate everywhere. But the volume of campaign coverage shown here is not large enough to deem him a special case over and above most other 2012 congressional candidates. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) 13:37, 25 June 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 The Nixons. While there was some support for a merge, an inspection of the article showed it to be completely unsourced. As such there was nothing to merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Humphrey (drummer)[edit]

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

While this musician was part of several notable bands, the subject is not a notable member of any of them and fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on The Nixons. Part of the article on John Humphrey is a discography of the Nixons, which is surely of more relevance to the band than it is to him. Vorbee (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep as a member of two notable bands, or merge with The Nixons. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whichever of his bands is better known. Deb (talk) 15:46, 27 June 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. Arguably not the best participation but the discussion has been relisted once and no argument for keeping the article has been presented. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Tompson Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 07:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I tried, but was unable to find any sources that would indicate notability. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:36, 23 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Perdue[edit]

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

Non notable author which looks like it was created by the author. The book Lee seems self-published and has a review at Kirkus, which doesn't mean much. It seems any self-published writer can pay them $500 to get a review published there. https://selfpublishingadvice.org/publishing-is-a-kirkus-review-worth-the-price/ Kirkus promises you a review in 7–9 weeks for $425. You can purchase an expedited review for $575, and they will deliver it in 4–6 weeks. They tell you the review will be 250–300 words. Not sure if the same is true about Publishers Weekly, maybe not, since it is a rather negative review. (I had to create an account to do this AFD since I could not complete the procedure without an account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Perdue (talk • contribs) 09:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His books were regularly reviewed in major mainstream publications well into the 2000s, before, I suppose, he became too controversial. For example, a quick online search turns up a couple of reviews in the LA Times, in addition to several reviews and articles in New York Press, Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. Smetanahue (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The request for deletion is completely incorrect. Lee (novel) is not self-published, and is itself well covered by independent reliable sources, as I have explained here. The Kirkus review is also considered to be a reliable source, due to being published independently before Kirkus started offering paid reviews. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Author has created a work that has appeared in multiple independent reviews. That makes them notable by that standard. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 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 consensus seems to be that the article satisfies WP:NB, due to the reviews by Kirkus and the New York Press. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee (novel)[edit]

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

Non notable. Seems self-published. The book has a review at Kirkus, which doesn't mean much. It seems any self-published writer can pay them $500 to get a review published there. https://selfpublishingadvice.org/publishing-is-a-kirkus-review-worth-the-price/ Kirkus promises you a review in 7–9 weeks for $425. You can purchase an expedited review for $575, and they will deliver it in 4–6 weeks. They tell you the review will be 250–300 words. Not sure if the same is true about Publishers Weekly, maybe not, since it is a rather negative review. (I had to create an account to do this AFD since I could not complete the procedure without an account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Perdue (talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Tito Perdue. I see that the article on Tito Perdue is up for deletion but it seems that it would be more sensible to merge the book with an author rather than vice versa. Vorbee (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NB. Kirkus Reviews is a serious publication and the book was not self-published, so the nominator's speculations about that are baseless. Smetanahue (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Anybody can pay Kirkus $500 for a review. I'm not doubting that Kirkus is not serious in writing a review if you pay them. See the link from selfpublishingadvice above. But a Kirkus review has even less importance than a review on Amazon.com. At least the reviews on Amazon.com are honest and not paid advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Perdue (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. I suspect you are being deliberately misleading when you say that. I don't know why you want to delete the article, or why your account name is the same as the author. But I will ignore that and focus on Kirkus. Put simply, that particular Kirkus review was done before Kirkus started offering paid reviews, during this period they were one of the more respected and reliable publishers of reviews. In 2009, they started offering paid reviews for indie authors in addition to their ongoing unpaid reviews. The "indie reviews" are clearly marked, and this review is not one. This has been debated twice on a Wikipedia noticeboard, please do examine Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#Kirkus Reviews and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Kirkus Reviews, both of which support what I just said. The review in this article is from 1991 and therefore is considered to be a reliable and independent source on Wikipedia. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be attacking me, I was not aware that Kirkus offers paid reviews only more recently. Thank you for clearing things up about Kirkus. But Kirkus reviews over 7000 titles per year, are all these over 7000 titles per year notable enough for a wikipedia article? I don't think so, but maybe others think different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Perdue (talk • contribs)

I am entitled to be suspicious, there are Wikipedia policies to do with people editing articles about themselves and their work. I abide by these and my books are not on Wikipedia until someone else decides they should be, and if that happens I would not try to have those articles deleted. In the spirit of linking with shortcuts, they are WP:OWN and WP:COI. Plus I have no way of knowing if you are impersonating the author or not, and don't even know how to proceed with that concern.

It is not up to what I think or you think or what any individual volunteer here thinks about notability. The WP:NB guideline is very clear, and it is easy to see that this article is notable.

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

It is very simple, all books that meet this criteria are notable on Wikipedia. To answer your question, my understanding is that if a title reviewed by Kirkus were also reviewed by one other reliable reviewer, they would meet the notability guideline and be eligible for an article, the number of articles on Wikipedia appears to be unlimited so I don't think it goes further than that. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the WP:NB notability guideline. The book is reviewed by Kirkus in 1991, New York Press in 2001 and 2003, Los Angeles Times in 2007, and Publishers Weekly in 1991. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Book has been written about by multiple sources, making it notable per WP:NBOOK. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per Frayae and Tillerh11. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. James500 (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per the reviews posted above by Frayæ. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 30 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Poker[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable online gambling website. Creator has few edits outside this topic. MER-C 11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged it with notability and sourcing issue tags 8 years ago. Not much has improved since then. The-Pope (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Appears to be advertisement. Mattximus (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant promotion. Deb (talk) 18:48, 24 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer Fools[edit]

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

Not notable. Little depth of coverage, WP:ORGDEPTH. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Around 5 local New Orleans media items - mainly related to the shooting of a man and his infant son. Not sufficient for NCRIME or CORPDEPTH.Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 27 June 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. Not the strongest consensus, but after being relisted and no clear Keep argument... time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Stern[edit]

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

I tried, but was unable to find any in depth sources on Robert Stern. His marriage to Susan Stern does not make him notable per WP:BIOFAMILY. His role as a lobbyist for the Washington State Labor Council led to a few quotes in the media, but no in depth coverage. I also searched newspapers.com and found no relevant results.

Note: I removed a significant amount of content cited to primary sources. For the old version, see Special:permalink/845983502 — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : We should give this AfD process some time to develop, since this is a subject that's notable in the real world. Let's wait a while to see is he's also Wikinotable. -The Gnome (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... this is a subject that's notable in the real world
If that is true, where are the sources? Being notable where nobody is taking note of you is a contradiction in terms. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some reliable sources attesting to actual notability are provided. What sources there are, are incredibly vague, and insufficient for a BLP. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 28 June 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FORA.tv[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. The article has few references and searching does not turn up significant, independent coverage in RS. MB 04:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here are some media coverage references from their website. And another newspaper article around the same time as the CNET/NYTimes articles. StrayBolt (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources offered do not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. I don't see any notability here. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, Mia Watson (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They provid evideo services,and this is merely an advertisement esentially comprising a client list.Such lists are how such companies advertise. The so called reference are inclusions in lists. That Time mentions 5 such services and they are one of them doesn;t show notability. The material in Telechrunch is a press releases--just read it. Them Material at Fast Company is a short comparison table. I suspect that the keeps here are based on people looking at hte reference list, not looking at hte references. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: For the client list, would you prefer RS for all the clients mentioned, more prose, scattered mentions, or no mention of any client anywhere? I did not add the list and I'm not sure the MoS for them so I left it as is for the moment, but I prefer the first option. I think several need to be mentioned to support some of the generalizations of videos and partners. Time had a long list for the year, and a short list which they were featured. The Techcrunch is written by Sarah Lacy so I'm not likely to call it a press release. Tables are condensed forms of information which would be many paragraphs in prose. Yes, read the references. StrayBolt (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even companies offering trivial projects may have hundreds of customers, and any large firm may buy essentially the same project from many different suppliers. If there is specific notability to a relationship, it can be discussed. Otherwise it's advertising, trivia, or both. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole pro-keep editor, while claiming good sources, failed to provide any. In the absence of those sources the weight of argument strongly favors deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sellma Kasumoviq[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:BIO as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, unless having a large Instagram and Facebook following gives notability. The article is promotional in nature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks highly promotional to me. Deb (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search turned up the usual social sites, a couple of rentaquote passing mentions, and this promotional interview. Zero independent in-depth sources; fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I think there are quite a lot of sources citing Sellma as being a notable person. Would it be better to move this article to the Albanian version of Wikipedia instead (opening a debate for this)? For example, all of the sources cited are from Kosovo news outlets, such as Telegrafi, and the articles are written in Albanian, just because they are not in English does not mean they are not credible and/or reputable, you can clearly see for example in the Telegrafi website in "about us" they have a huge staff of writers and there is a hierarchy (chief editor, redactor etc) so articles in this site are not simply published without verification. Etrithaxhiu (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I searched in Albanian. I will accept a WP:RS source in any language, including ones I do not speak. In this instance, I found nothing WP:RS to sustain an article in English Wikipedia. Just the usual social site rubbish.

"I think there are quite a lot of sources citing Sellma as being a notable person." Put up or shut up.

Albanian Wiki has its own rules. Here, we are discussing whether or not Sellma Kasumoviq meets the criteria for an article in English Wikipedia. Discussions and consensus in other languages are irrelevant. Just as discussions and consensus in English Wiki are irrelevant in other Wikis. Narky Blert (talk) 21:59, 28 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Von Gruning[edit]

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

Article makes a lot of claims why this person should be notable but when trying to follow up on them, I cannot find a single reliable source that talks about her at all. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG.

I'm also nominating

which is the subject's company and about which I can find as little coverage as I can find about her. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. So Why 09:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles on account of subjects failing WP:NBIO & WP:NCREATIVE and respectively WP:NCORP & even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are both highly advertorialized, not encyclopedic, in tone, and neither of them is referenced to any evidence of reliable source coverage — the referencing is a mix of primary and unreliable sources that don't support notability at all, not media coverage about her or the company for the purposes of satisfying WP:GNG, WP:CORP or our notability standards for fashion designers. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:ENT per above, and adding that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:31, 28 June 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. Consensus not to have an article, some suggestions to merge, but not clear where to. A redirect can be editorially created and contested. Sandstein 06:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting Futures[edit]

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

Could not find coverage in WP:RS independent of the subject. Unclear notability since 2012. Possibly merge with Azra Meadows or Peter S. Meadows. Tera TIX 05:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 05:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 05:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak suggestion to merge with article on Peter S. Meadows. Vorbee (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be merged, it should be merged. M A A Z T A L K 04:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning merge, but two merge targets have been suggested, with otherwise minimal input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability at all. This is not a likely common search term and frankly a redirect is not justified here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 1 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Independent Scout Organisation[edit]

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

Unreferenced article with likely COI (founder = author). I am unable to identify reliable, unaffiliated sources about this organisation. Therefore, propose deletion as it fails GNG and NORG. As a side note, the main body World Organization of Independent Scouts may also warrant to be looked at given it's defective sourcing and likely lack of notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no credible assertion of notability. Doesn't seem particularly appropriate to redirect to World Organization of Independent Scouts if by the nominator's admission, that article includes "defective sourcing". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no assertion of notability and no sources. It could be a redirect to World Organization of Independent Scouts as I did earlier, but is not clear it even deserves that. I have already edited that article to clarify the UK positision. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:22, 23 June 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 am invoking WP:NOTAVOTE here. While the !votes are pretty much tied the weight of argument, especially the detailed analyses of sources near the bottom, is so strong that I can't call it anything other than a delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actors of the World[edit]

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

Minor, defunct Off-Off-Broadway theatre company with few productions, none of them notable, that later relocated to London and closed down after two further seasons. Fails GNG/NORG. (The related article Marco Aponte is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Aponte.) Sam Sailor 07:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has existed since 2008. Their first production in New York was a US premiere. Their playwriting contest was won by prominent authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:400:52F7:31B5:B5A6:97FC:1B40 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2601:644:400:52F7:31B5:B5A6:97FC:1B40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete I co-founded this company years ago. We closed after seven years. We would appreciate if you could please delete the page. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoaponte (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a reason to justify deletion? The company existed, and -- at least from the information in the article -- it appears to have been reasonably notable. Is the information incorrect? If so, you can note on the article talk page what you believe needs to fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a violation of privacy in the text, Marcoaponte, by all means point it out. Yet, it's not even a WP:BLP. I'm afraid the decision to keep it or delete it will be taken by consensus on tha basis of policy. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say that it passes the notability requirements, especially in that it won legitimate awards. I have not seen a convincing argument why it should be deleted. Simply being "defunct" is not a reason to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it should be deleted, because the company is defunct. It should be deleted pursuant to policy, WP:DEL8, because it fails the notability guidelines. Care to present the significant coverage in reliable sources? Sam Sailor 22:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An off-off-Broadway company which won two Latino ACE awards is notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only, (a) they did not win two New York Latin ACE Awards, the director won one. I have resurrected the primary source from the Web.Archive, it lists I guess between 50 and 100 people who received the award that year. Now we just need a third-party reference that talks about Francisco Bustamante (not this Francisco) receiving the honour. Currently, it is unsourced that Marco Aponte was nominated, and I can not find a source. Anybody else can?
And (b), neither 1 nor 2 New York Latin ACE Awards confers notability, it is an assertion based on opinion, not on relevant guidelines. Sam Sailor 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A week later, have any sources been found to base a keep !vote on? Sam Sailor 10:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closed as keep but relisting after discussion on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep since subject was indeed once notable. Curtain calls. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Who said subject ever was notable? Looking at the article history, this SPA PROMO piece never was sourced to verify notability. Quoting WP:NTEMP is a mere WP:ASSERTN argument. But do bring on the sources required and we'll have a look at them. I provide numerous alt. searches below for convenience. Sam Sailor 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative searches:

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

I have added one further citation to a review of the company's 2003 production of Manhatitlán as well as a link to a newsletter (.pdf) from the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors that mentions the group. An assessment of the current sourcing is found below. We still need significant coverage about the company as such, and those opining "keep" are invited to show verifiable evidence of notability. In case someone will argue that the WP:NORG → WP:NBIO loop lands on WP:NBIO, it is still WP:BASIC that should be met. Sam Sailor 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.oobr.com/top/volEight/fourteen/DayYou.htm	Review of a 2001 production of a Cabrujas play performed on Pulse Theatre. Scorching. Reviewer is not this John Chatterton.	OOBR, the Off-Off Broadway Review, although non-notable, can be presumed to be reliable for what it's worth.	WP:INHERITORG applies here, the theatre company does not become notable in itself because one of their productions got a short review on a non-notable website.	✘ No
http://www.curtainup.com/fringe2003.html	Short mention of the company's 2003 adaption of a Schwarz-Bart play.	Presumably yes, FWIW, although CurtainUp is not a notable website.	WP:INHERITORG applies again here.	✘ No
https://www.backstage.com/review/manhatitlan/	Yes, another review of the 2003 adaption of Ton Beau Capitaine	Backstage, a solid source	Again, it is a review of a production, it is not an article about the theatre company.	✘ No
http://latinACEawards.org/index-06.html	Archived here	A list of winners of that year's award.		✘ No
http://www1.aston.ac.uk/clipp/projects/2008/making-short-films-in-the-second-language-classroom/	404 again, but can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20120307184039/http://www1.aston.ac.uk/clipp/learning-innovation/project-reports/2008/making-short-films-in-the-second-language-classroom/		Actors of the World is not mentioned. It is a project announcement by the company's founder Marco Aponte.	✘ No
http://www.actorsoftheworld.com/	Company website, domain has expired.	? Archived at e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20120210131738/http://www.actorsoftheworld.com/	?	✘ No
https://camdenfringe.com/	URL to Camden Fringe Festival	?	No mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

I yield to the impressive forensic work above and strike off my suggestion. Memories don't cut it. -The Gnome (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honourable. And thanks for the kind words. Sam Sailor 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 23 June 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 first Keep argument appears based on outdated community consensus since reversed and I am disregarding it. The 2nd however, looks solid and w/o any rebuttal is compelling. That said this is not the strongest consensus so my close is w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination provided there is a direct response in the nominating statement to Billhpike's comment and sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infocap[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Automatic notability as a school. Find also recent, independent news sources as here and here. Jzsj (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- First, schools are not always notable about some people want you to believe otherwise. Second, the two "sources" you give are useless. The first is about an award ceremony with some company promo. The second is an announcement that course start enrolling. The Banner talk 17:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure why you're applying such exclusive criteria to schools that are prominent only for helping the poor, not for supporting their local newspapers. Please note that according to the criteria at WP:QS, these sources are not "useless" (emphasis added): Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. I suggest that the sources you mention do not fail this test for usefulness. Jzsj (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and February 2017 RFC The Banner talk 20:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily pass passes WP:GNG with coverage in academic sources. See Google scholar search results and these articles

Luis, Roblera Arriagada (October 2003). "20 años de historia: Infocap; la universidad del trabajador" [20 years of history: Infocap; the university of the worker]. Mensaje (in Spanish). 52 (523). Santiago: 34-37.
Turri, Tomas Andres Ilabaca (2015). "Trabajador colectivo o Trabajador emprendedor. : Tensiones en el proceso de formación en Infocap" [Collective worker or entrepreneur worker? Tensions in the training process in Infocap]. Revista de Estudios Cotidianos (in Spanish). 3 (1): 172–206. ISSN 0719-1936.
Marina, Hernández Pinto (2002). Instituto de capacitación y formación laboral: la universidad de los pobres [Institute of training and labor training: the university of the poor] (Thesis) (in Spanish). Andrés Bello National University.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:11, 25 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.C. Kejriwal Vidyapeeth[edit]

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

Absolutely no sources found... — F R ⁺ 09:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was written off of the school guide, so I have tagged it for self-published. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Push to Draft~~ Delete It's possible an article can be written about the school, but as it stands, there are NO sources besides the school's website itself and handbooks that only the school students and staff have. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC) updated 15:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional text about a subject failing WP:GNG. But what am I saying? Schools are not deleted as long as they exist! -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be deleted based on the promo/copypaste alone, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone could develop the article but I agree there's too much self-pub promotion as it stands. Changing vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article amounts to an About page and was not surprisingly written by a user named Mckv. With the current lack of sourcing, the subject fails GNG. If anyone independent of the school wishes to create an article about the school based on available sources at some later time, I have no problems with that. Sam Sailor 09:44, 27 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bjorkman[edit]

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

Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate does not establish notability. Vexations (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he's already an elected official? Being a candidate does not establish notability, I agree with that. He's a retired judge, who's been appointed by the Governor of the state and has won multiple reelections?

Koncurrentkat (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you hopped the gun on this early, but we can remedy this by closing this discussion early. See the criterion below:

Delete he hasn't held statewide office as a judge and isn't otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 16:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say, it must be a statewide office. It is a state office that is reelected from his circuit, much like a state legislator. A circuit court office, in a circuit court system, is much broader geographically than a typical trial level judge or a state legislator's territory-therefore he's patently notable. Latently, he's candidate for an at-large (state-wide if you will) Congressional District, so he has received significantly more media coverage than a typical Congressional candidate. Koncurrentkat (talk :02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It says specifically in WP:NPOL that the office or judicial position must be statewide. His judicial position only covers several counties, unlike a state appellate judge or supreme court justice. Furthermore, we typically do not keep candidates who are running for office. While you are correct a state legislator only represents a small area as well, they represent that area in a statewide legislature. South Dakota does not get a notability waiver for only having one congressional district. SportingFlyer talk 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware running for Congress does not automatically qualify for a wikipedia page, I agree with you on that point (Despite it saying, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article") However it does say, "Just being an elected local official....does not guarantee notability." He's by definition a state official by the State of South Dakota. Generally, if your territory is multi-county that is by defintion a state official rather than a county official. If we're going by other criterion of state official v. local official-his circuit court district encompasses 15 counties, which is hardly local. Show me what makes him a local official in the wiki definitions:

He may be paid by the state to be a circuit court judge, but he does not hold a statewide judicial role per WP:NPOL. Circuit courts are the general trial courts for South Dakota, they're not special courts just because they encompass multiple counties because it's a rural part of the world. SportingFlyer talk 23:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statewide office. By definition he is not a local official, but a state official. Where does it say it must be required to be statewide? They are benched in their circuit, they can preside statewide. Do you have an example of a trial level judge page being deleted? Koncurrentkat (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says it in the first sentence of WP:NPOL that they have to be statewide. He is not a statewide judge, he is a trial court judge representing several counties. The fact he is qualified to be a judge in a specific district is irrelevant. We do not presume trial court judges notable. There aren't many AfDs on the matter, but this appears to be the most recent: [2] SportingFlyer talk 04:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local politicians[edit]

Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London. Losing candidates for municipal election are not considered inherently notable just for their candidacy and are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated.
American county-level legislators are considered to be similarly not-inherently notable just like municipal politicians.
Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesman for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone.

Koncurrentkat (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:NPOL:

The following are presumed to be notable:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

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".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mercifully, per nomination. Subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 23 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazakhtar Nikakhtar[edit]

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

The subject of the article is an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Commerce. She appears to have received only passing mentions in the major press. This is another one of the articles created on minor Trump Administration bureaucrats by @Biografix:. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the 5 under secretaries are probably all notable, Nikakhatar is one of 3 assistant secretaries under one of those 5 under secretaries, that is a step too far for default notability, and nothing else here shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No default notability, no major coverage. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON, fails GNG.^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, will possibly be notable in the future but we'll see plus needs more sources anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:33, 25 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibha Tiwari[edit]

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

Ref 3, 4 have some coverage but ref no 5, 6 are just mentions, 7-11 are same news published in various newspapers. Also she has only recurring role in Saath Nibhana Saathiya. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable yet. Most of the roles are from recurring. Also WP:BLP fail. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons expressed above by Siddiq and 1997kb Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:43, 25 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Dominic's Church, Bahawalpur[edit]

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

Nothing historic, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet WP:GNG.Plenty of WP:RS exist.I have added a few.--Shrike (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all Keepers: Tone up the educational aspect of churches, buildings, and institutions. Schools are never deleted from Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has reliable sources coverage, rubs two schools, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG per GBooks preview [3]; site of a massacre that got substantive coverage. I don't see a compelling reason for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep searches show enormous INDEPTH international news coverage [4], and WP:SIGCOV in books ["St. Dominic" pakistan 2001].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while the shooting may be notable, notability is not inherited. I think Störm is most likely correct that this fails WP:GEOFEAT. I would support merging some of the content to Persecution_of_Christians#Pakistan (which may be able ready for a split anyway) and redirecting to Roman Catholic Diocese of Multan. The compelling reason is to prevent the creation of endless permastubs about non-notable buildings. The content here could be used to improve existing articles instead.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the shooting is notable then we should rename this article to reflect this Shrike (talk) 03:43, 1 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Young Min Kim[edit]

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

Prod tag removed. Fails notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Not a player, so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Ifnord (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Blame the criterion, if you want. -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:42, 25 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Mithran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/P.S Mithran

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

Debuting director who fails to meet WP:NDIRECTOR or general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject still fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG, as was the case in the previous AfD (which resulted in deletion) in May 2018. The article subject has yet to accrue the in-depth coverage and recognition that is needed to pass WP:DIRECTOR; this is not unexpected given that the director has only recently made his debut (a WP:TOOSOON issue). Some coverage exists in regards to his film (Irumbu Thirai (2018 film)) but said coverage concerns the film (mostly weighted towards the cast and standard film reviews), not the director, which is an issue per WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing I have seen indicates that Mithran's directorial style was unique or innovative, and it is certainly not widely cited given that the subject's first film was released in mid-may 2018. Mentions of Mithran continue to be mentions in passing or trivial in nature, and some sources cited by the article (from seemingly reliable sources like the timesofindia) are [5] [6] bare-bones to say the least. The only source that seems to directly concern Mithran is an interview [7] with him, which is not independent of the subject and as such compromises WP:PRIMARY and WP:SIGCOV. In short, a new director who has directed one movie that, while well received, in no way stands testament to Mirthan's notability and thus qualifies the article in question for deletion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 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 Tap Tap. As the article is almost completely unsourced any meaningful merge would run afoul of both CITE and V. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tap Tap Revenge 2[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NOTABILITY and lack of mentions and lacks WP:RS. Tap Tap Glee, Tap Tap Revenge 3, Tap Tap Revenge 4, Nine Inch Nails Revenge, Nirvana Revenge have all been deleted or redirected per that reasoning. R9tgokunks ⯃ 22:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with Tap Tap, as with the others.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tap Tap per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tap Tap Glee czar 21:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Non-notable on it's own. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:25, 25 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helpshift[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine funding notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/AaronEndre with a history of what looks to be promotional editing, based on behavioural evidence. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting case because the page has been up since 5 years or so. My first reaction is always to try and help save a page if it has been there for that long. I googled it. A lot of coverage pops up in major independent publications. So might satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria but it seems like a PR run instead of actual notability. Is not worth being on an encyclopedia in my opinion Globe2trotter (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference, and I think the references from reliable sources are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of lack of notability. Five years is a long time for WP:TOOSOON but it's still too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 23 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Jordan[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Awards are fan-based or scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my view the coverage of sources satisfies WP:BASIC, its fame and the participation in notorious films of Digital Playground satisfies WP: NACTOR. Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails both the guidelines for actors and pronographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:PORNBIO. Stay focused when WP:BEFORE . -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both PORNBIO and the GNG. Being a contract star for Digital Playground is not an automatic claim to notability and other contract stars have been deleted for not meeting any notability guidelines. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Norton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources to pass [[WP:BASIC]] / [[WP:GNG]] are not present and can not be found, and I see no criterion in [[WP:MUSICBIO]] being passed here. An article about subject was deleted following AFD in both 2016 and 2017. Sam Sailor 01:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Perhaps a bit of salt, if the outcome here is delete? Sam Sailor 01:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is a strictly promotional text that fails to meet notability criteria, particularly WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NARTIST. Salt as well. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After two AfD's and three years of trying to promote this subject on wikipedia, there is finally one source (Keighley News) that qualifies as independent recognition, but it is a slight, hometown news puff piece, and far, far from what is needed to qualify for encyclopedic importance. It may still be WP:TOOSOON but I'm inclined to agree it's time to consider SALT. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a sniff of notability since he's remixed some notable artists, but these don't come close to clearing the bar at WP:MUSICBIO. He may well become notable in his own right one day, but not yet. — sparklism ^hey! 12:42, 27 June 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.