< 20 March	22 March >

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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Hotel Dublin fire[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS applies. reddogsix (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No casualties (fortunately) and the building is not notable in itself. Without any lasting significance, I do not see how this isn't yet another story in the news.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wide media coverage as of now. If not, rename to Metro Hotel (Dublin) and rewrite as article about hotel. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a dime-a-dozen hotel fire. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Heliotom (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not news. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seven floors is a pretty big fire, but that seems to be as far as it goes. No evidence this is going to see significant, lasting coverage. 92.10.188.218 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's major news now.[4][5][6][7], Google News search -Mardus /talk 17:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Major" is a stretch and we aren't the news anyways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA (as is effectively a routine news events without additional enduring significance). And nothing to indicate it meets WP:LASTING (as doesn't seem to be an event which is a precedent or catalyst for something else). Put simply, as noted by others above, this seems like a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Guliolopez (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect with selective merge to Ballymun. A few sentences about the building with a mention of the fire would fit well, in a relatively article that stands in need of improvement/updating. This building is, for Ireland/Dublin, fairly notable - one of the Tallest buildings in Ireland, although it does not appear to have been added to on Wikipedia's list. And the fire has attracted significant attention, enough to make it a likely search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ballymun#2018_Metro_Hotel_Dublin_fire. Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have some doubts, but the consensus is clear. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick's Church (Benton, Wisconsin)[edit]

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

It does not appear to meet WP:NCHURCH. Dolotta (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CHURCH is a guideline naming convention, with no bearing on notability.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It was a typo on my end -- forgot an "n". I corrected it above. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that WP:NCHURCH refers to churches as organisations, not church buildings. WP:GEOFEAT is the appropriate guideline for those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historic and notable. The Builder of the church, Father Samuel Mazzuchelli built over 20 churches in three states or territories. This church and four others still survive. This is not only historical but unique. The church was errected around a standing building originally the St. James Church, with one wall open so church could continue, then at a point the building was taken out, moved across the street, and became the St. Clara Female Academy (Original St. James Church pp. 5 & 6) that later became the Benton Female Academy. There are sources for this article. Otr500 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you add some of them? I'm inclined to keep this, with a few more sources, but on a (very hasty) search couldn't come up with much. In the worst case the content could be added to the article on Fr Mazzuchelli, since he's not only the founder but is buried there. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some citations; the church is historical. Keep Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Photo included in article, and age of church (built 1852) suggest it is indeed historic and notable, in that it would almost certainly be eligible for listing in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Many churches decline to be listed, so it is not unusual that this is not listed. Also, citations have been added (which I have not reviewed). --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. Royal broil 03:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Information that I can see about this church makes it appear notable, and sources exist to create a better article than we have now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilweyne[edit]

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

A bit of a twist on this locality/bank-spot: there are numerous stories about a military training camp/barracks of the same name, but it is nowhere near the location given. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and everything else. Location is 404 Planet Not Found :) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't seem to verify this place even exists. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gough[edit]

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

New article probably autobiographical which does not assert notability very well. Includes unreferenced claims Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Also has all the hallmarks of being an autobiography or a product of COI-based editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, as I evidently missed the fact that she served in the state assembly. I will note that the article extremely underplays that fact in favour of an overemphasis on her less notable position, to the point that an entirely reasonable person like me could miss the assembly claim entirely — so the article still needs an overhaul to put the WP:WEIGHT of notability and sourcing where it belongs. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Giunchigliani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a county councillor and non-winning candidate for higher offices. As always, neither of these represents an automatic free pass over our notability standards for politicians -- county commissioners aren't automatically presumed to pass NPOL #2 just because they exist, and candidates don't get articles just for being candidates -- but there's no quality reliable sourcing being shown here to get her over WP:GNG: of the seven "references" here, one is just a pronunciation key to her surname rather than a source, four are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, one is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a source that isn't about her, and the last is one of my all-time favourite achievements in reference bombing: "2011 Las Vegas Mayoral Race Coverage, Fox5Vegas.com". Not any specific piece of coverage, but just the whole kit and caboodle in toto grande, cited only to support the fact that she lost the race. (Here, of course, is where it's necessary for me to remind everyone that the expected and routine local coverage of a mayoral election does not automatically vault the loser over GNG as a detour around her failure to clear NPOL.) None of the sourcing is cutting any mustard here at all, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She served as a state legislator, and she is a local politician in the most populated and influential county/region in the state. Her qualification alone makes her a serious contender, not some perennial minor candidate. Acnetj (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, no local politician anywhere — big county, small county, doesn't matter — gets a free exemption from having to pass NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage just because of her county's size. So at the volume of sourcing shown here, her status in local politics counts for nothing. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Former member of the Nevada Assembly. Scanlan (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. WP:CSD#A10 clearly applies. --Jayron 32 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Modified by TheSandDoctor so that it closed properly per closing instructions for AfD. Version before close fix can be found here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hormones and glands[edit]

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

Useless as an additon for both hormones and glands have articles. It is also a useles deletable XY redirect so the title should be removed. The author has blanked both a Speedy Nom and this AfD notice. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a clear A10 candidate. No need to keep this open any longer. --Jayron 32 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formulae of shapes[edit]

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

A poorly formatted, weekly referenced, indiscriminate collection of formula duplicating Area#Area_formulas, Perimeter and other articles. It a near orphan. )) Salix alba (talk): 22:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom; there's nothing more to say about it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too indiscriminate - "some formulae of some shapes", and those already covered elsewhere... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Also, these are formulae related to some shapes, but not the formulae of those shapes, which (to me at least) would be the equations that yield those shapes when graphed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boxcar Bar + Arcade[edit]

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

Unremarkable business, not meeting WP:N criteria. No significant in-depth news or media coverage found, except in local rags. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing has been found to support notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Hansen[edit]

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

Non notable book author, only primary sources, stores, and unreliable ones available. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 22:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - no evidence of significant (or really any) coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Weak keep in its reworked form, with thanks to E.M.Gregory for the additional sourcing, and DGG for removing some of the fluff. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actually getting your book published is a tremendous achievement, but I'm not seeing the sort of coverage in reliable secondary sources that we need in order to write a fair and impartial article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR with WP:SIGCOV in all of the major newspapers in New Zealand: profiles, book reviews,interviews, career retrospectives. Also some coverage in other countries. Many years and many books, some more popular than others. Searches may have been hampered by the usual factors: he started publishing years ago, so a good news archive produces more accurate results & there are other Dereks Hansen, so keywords help.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC) WP:HEY, I added a handful of the many reviews in major newspapers, movie deal for Sole Survivor- I have no idea if the movie was made, and a profile. Lots more coverage could be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, movie wasn't finished. Man alone on an island surrounded by water, Cast Away came out then so Sole Survivor did't make it, too similar in a way. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A number of significant books, one a best-seller. I rempoved some typical promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this is what Austlit has for just one of his books. There is much more than enough out there. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hareerikalle[edit]

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

Somali "town" which does show up as a populated place in the database cited. However these databases have proved to be unreliable in the past, there are no buildings anywhere near the claimed location (there is a settlement about 25 km to the southwest) and I can't find any other sources. Hut 8.5 22:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and everything else. Place is Not There L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find it or any similar spellings. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus is to keep; best title can be determined. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PhagesDB[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. References appear to be other directories and a primary-source paper on the database. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's certainly being used a lot. There are hundreds (no exaggeration) of papers that cite it as the source of their phage data [8]. We have plenty of articles about scientific databases that are considered notable based on their uptake and frequency of appearance as cited sources, not secondary coverage - e.g, just to grab a few taxonomic ones, Hymenoptera genome database, Index Fungorum, World Checklist of Selected Plant Families... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fair argument to keep, but not so compelling I'm going to withdraw this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is just a reference to another database that is widely used and referenced by lots of pages [9]. However, I suppose it can be edited more to make it less 'fluffy' and more factual. It could also be converted to a stub instead of keeping it as a full blown article. Imanraja (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Imanraja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is an extremely important topic which can be used worldwide. Many learning institutions use this database and this page provides the right amount of information. Aviayossefi1 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Aviayossefi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comments: Lots of reasons to keep the Actinobacteriophage database, "commonly known" (with only 3 references) as PhagesDB that is self described as a database-backed website. Why have an ambiguous title "known" only in a smaller circle as DB? Actinobacteriophage database is self describing and less ambiguous. Sometimes "short and to the point" translates to "too short and confusing". Otr500 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geelkuriban[edit]

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

Somali "town" which even has its own T-shirts. Unfortunately for the T-shirt industry it doesn't exist: there are no non-clickbait references, the one link cited describes it as a "locality" (which means people don't necessarily live there) and nothing shows up on satellite imagery. Hut 8.5 22:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delet One of the stranger so called Somali towns, but it's just like the rest: It isn't real. Also is it just me or does the name sound vaguely japanese?💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete The usual Somali locality results about what is a blank spot on the ground. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails V and per nom. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enervee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently this was already deleted, but was recreated by a now banned editor with undeclared COI who was potentially a paid editor. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Theredproject (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is weak and promotional. scope_creep (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Paid for. Szzuk (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Murder Most Unladylike. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wells & Wong Detective Society[edit]

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

This article is about characters in a book. I don't see how the characters are notable outside of the book, there is no significant coverage of them in reliable sources (other than being mentioned as characters in the book). Attempts to redirect the article to the book have been met with resistance by the author of the article. ... discospinster _talk 21:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FANCRUFTAcnetj (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We do not delete pages because a BLAR was reverted. If this topic is not notable, it should be redirected to the book Murder Most Unladylike. If someone edit wars over the redirect, the page should be protected. That is ATD. (2) Calling content "cruft" is not a valid argument for anything. If I am wrong about that, the essay WP:FANCRUFT should itself be deleted as "wikicruft" and "deletioncruft" and "deletionistcruft". Cf. Wikipedia:Don't call things cruft (aka NOCRUFT). James500 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable from a real world or out-of-universe perspective and surely WP:FANCRUFT. A fictional detective Society from a book Murder Most Unladylike that has solved eight fictional cases. Since the "fictional society" would be known to someone already familiar with the book it does not need a redirect. Maybe if the fictional society solves a world-renoun fictional case and somehow gaining non-fictional notability it might be different. Otr500 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not one of the criteria for deletion of redirects under WP:R. Redirects must be shown to be positively harmful. As a general rule we do not delete plausible redirects because they facilitate accidental linking, avoid the creation of duplicate articles (which usually get re-created over and over and over again forever if there is no redirect), and the deletion of their page histories can lead to copyvios if they have ever been copied anywhere, and etc etc etc. Not to mention that we might want to merge some of the content to the book's article. As a general rule we avoid deleting plausible redirects like the plague because the results are usually bad. This is all in the guideline. James500 (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the "deletion policy"." and not specifically the redirect guideline. There is always a lot of Wikilawyering on AFD's, and some otherwise good willed closers get confused. The bottom line is that all but a KEEP !vote is a determination that an article does not deserve stand-alone status on Wikipedia. Renamed/moved to another title is still a keep just under a different name. Because of the continued confusion and the easy way of closing as "no consensus, even when it is clear that consensus is for no stand-alone article, I have had to adjust accordingly when an article does not (in my opinion according to my interpretation of the policies and guidelines) deserve stand-alone status. You can bludgeon the process by negatively responding to every !vote you disagree with as it is evident that you are a proponent of keeping the article. At some point, you can continue to try to ride the dead stinking horse that has been badly beaten even when dead or you can just let the process proceed and the closer will make a determination. I have made the move to help confused closers with "keep", or "delete" (maybe merge when appropriate) and your comments can try to persuade a closer to redirect. I am sorry but I am NOT going to continue struggling against Wikilawyers that two keeps, two redirects, and two deletes equal a "no consensus" when (see above) no stand-alone status is super clear by a 66% margin. Maybe, just maybe, I can affect some change with others that "if it doesn't belong" by consensus (delete, merge, redirect, or other) the recourse is only to figure out "which of the other options" are viable. As for WP:FANCRUFT: You may find disdain for the word but the article explains "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.". This "may" (wikilawyering aside) have absolutely no bearing on a particular editor so feigning being offended if that person wasn't even in the equation is simply ludicrous and trying to dig up a bone to pick with someone. It "may" be as simple as a belief that the subject or content would or is directed at a "small population". Since I DO NOT intentionally attack anyone it will be an attack on me to not assume good faith that there was no malintent and IF someone has doubts it is so much easier to ask than to pull out the machine guns, rocket launchers, or lawyers. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One brief comment pointing to an important relevant guideline that has been overlooked is not bludgeoning anything, but this kind of accusatory screaming fit that accuses me of things I haven't said at all (I have certainly not argued for keeping the article) certainly is. Bottom line: WP:R is a guideline, and what is says is very clear. Nothing in the text of WP:AFD contradicts what WP:R says. James500 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!! The Wikilawyering NEVER ceases-- ever. One comment plus one comment equals ---two. The "Ranter" complains of someone ranting. I will type slowly in English: I made an observation "...it is evident that you are a proponent of keeping the article.". I typed as slow as I could so possibly read it twice. Your comments: "...but this kind of accusatory screaming fit that accuses me of things I haven't said at all (I have certainly not argued for keeping the article) certainly is.". Not one word (I looked twice while retyping) asserted that you have "argued for keeping the article". Your reply gives the impression that you were angry, maybe even red-faced, as you pounded out the silly comments. Yes they are silly! Taking offense and blatantly typing false things. That is actually comical to me. You did give a long rant of opinion, and I have offered mine, and yours was more than "One brief comment". To refresh your memory, or poor eyesight, what you signed as typing: "Calling content "cruft" is not a valid argument for anything. If I am wrong about that, the essay WP:FANCRUFT should itself be deleted as "wikicruft" and "deletioncruft" and "deletionistcruft". Cf. Wikipedia:Don't call things cruft (aka NOCRUFT)". That is a rant about your apparent disdain for things including the word cruft. I disagree and so do other editors. I might suggest you take a chill-pill (drink or whatever your vice) as this is good advice to prevent high blood pressure or heart problems. You obviously don't like the word "fancruft" and I dislike words like "cabal" but to rant that "any" use of fancruft should be deleted is your opinion. Keep at it though and it may catch on. IF you are seeking a "plausible redirect" then add that as part of the process so a closer can consider it as I am under no known mandate to only !vote redirect. Well the horse is long dead so you have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone searches for it, Murder Most Unladylike is the top result. Simply non-notable fiction-cruft, and unnecessary as a redirect - should be deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder Most Unladylike or delete as the topic does not appear to be notable enough for its own article. This could be a potential search term so a redirect may be helpful, though I also understand Zxcvbnm's point above my comment and would not disagree with a deletion either. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder Most Unladylike - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Chire[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR, as the article subject has only recently made her debute in the field and thus has not accrued significant coverage SamHolt6 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some research and found these additional sources: [10] [11] [12] [13] Theredproject (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions in passing are usually not applicable as in-depth sources. For example, this source [14] list the article subject trivially as one out of the top 16 dynamic female artists in London.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Come on! I could not find anything significant so did some research on the researched sources above. Fails GNG as lacks secondary sources over primary and fails all four criterion of WP:ARTIST. The first, an i-D fashion site titled the guerilla exhibition promoting women artists on the doorstep of frieze gives passing mention. The second, also an i-D site (does not add to notability count) is titled this artist shaved her head to get back to her roots and discusses that "Diana Chire’s body is her canvas". The third, "ASOS" is a fashion-feed site that at least addresses the subject. The last one is FAD (Art news, exhibitions, and competitions) titled 16 of the most dynamic female artists in London exhibiting on the doorstep of Frieze. Although the refbombing might indicate a Hey award, it might be too soon. She Zine intersectional feminist blog and quarterly digital magazine was founded by the editor-in-chief (and contributing editor) Allison Moyer. I could find Nikki Vergakes, the Culture & News Contributor When I tried to access the "Contributors" link I was redirected back to the page with Moyer and Vergakes and nothing on the subject which qualifies this under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. A lot of work to see a POV pushed very poorly sourced likely career stub pseudo-biography of a non-notable living person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep there are a few decent sources like (the W magazine profile) out there. Seems like GNG might be met. Pinging @Theredproject: 104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Neutral This one shares some overlap with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra_Bischoff but in this case there is no work in any collections, and not as consistent an exhibition record. Prob TOOSOON but it could be viable in a couple years, so deletion without prejudice for future recreation. Theredproject (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved her article and added additional citations. She been discussed in English, Italian and French in many magazines. She has been profiled by Vice [15] and was interviewed by Vogue Italy [16]. She has had her work exhibited and then written about. Passes WP:ARTIST because her work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." She also easily passes the general notabilty guidelines (WP:GNG) for any topic due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which shows that there is signigicant interest in this person in several different countries. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder that interviews like the Vogue one above do not contribute to notability in these discussions, as they are not independent. See WP:RS if you would like to learn more about the types of references that do contribute to notability.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything about interviews in that link. I can understand that an interview wouldn't be considered a reliable source for facts, but I don't understand how interest from Vogue doesn't provide at least some evidence of notability. Could you point me to the relevant section? Lonehexagon (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Theredproject: I have improved the article and I was wondering if you could take another look. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lonehexagon: You have done a good job of improving the article what we had (and the additional sources you found), but I'm not the source are enough IMHO. I've changed my vote to neutral: I could go either way, though I am leaning slightly on the delete side. Going back to Bischoff, we had some more substantive exhibition record, and non-interview reportage, and even there all we could get to was no consensus. That said, I DO believe that this one is probably TOOSOON, should not prevent future recreation if new events and materials emerge, and your worthwhile work should be Userfied to be improved over the next few years, and if she were to have a more substantive coverage, or exhibition, I would be happy for you to include that and we could try again. Theredproject (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theredproject: Thanks for your thoughts and insight. I appreciate it. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. that one appearance is not sufficient to show notability as an artist. There's a difference between tabloid oriented coverage of performance art, and the real critical attention needed for WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenio Pozzi[edit]

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

Page was created because is the biography of a person of particular influence in the city of Milan. In particular in the development of an actual project. This individual was also I gave to the page few reference (available only in Italian). This person was also one of the two major candidates chosen by the winning coalition of the 2001 italian general election to the position of Minister of transport in Italy. He is a well know person and very active in the city life. There are multiple references to convalidate and confirm what reported on the page. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemocaptain111 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No notability as an individual. Natureium (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claims of significance or importance. Fails WP:BIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Jacobson[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST criterion of inclusion. She's merely one of many, many U.S. on-air news/sports/weather talent. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject of significant coverage, including [17] [18] [19] - Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmel, Daniel M (June 28, 1996). "Natalie Jacobson wears many hats". Telegram & Gazette.
Kennedy, Dana (1988). "Goodnight Natalie, Goodnight Chet: The Boston Anchor Couple". Washington Journalism Review. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge with redirect to WCVB-TV (1st choice) with delete as last option: Keep: Final change; See amended reasoning below. Either of these three means the subject does not warrant a stand-alone article. This is a local reporter and anchor, although not the typical pseudo-biography. Someone will have to convince me that a run-of-the-mill television personality, that in the course of their job gave interviews including one that "may" have helped contribute to the down-slide of a candidate (was only beat by 4 points), and was the first female anchor at a station, is actually a notable person as being "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". This would be an edge case for the slippery slope argument that many thousands of worldwide anchors should have an article on Wikipedia. I did note the unlisted interesting fact that the subject reportedly divorced William D. Jacobson in 1973. This was after she met another person, the very notable^{[dubious – discuss]} Chet Curtis (play song Here You Come Again) at work that was probably a juicy office fling that she married and co-anchored with. If we go this route then all anchors in every country can (and should) have an article on Wikipedia. We will now become (among other things) a world-wide TV anchor listing vehicle. I can then list my mundane but good weatherman because there are plenty of local and regional sources. Otr500 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Concerning "Subject of significant coverage" listed in a "keep" above: Of the seven references on the article 5 are to the Boston Globe and one is the Telegram & Gazette. Of the three provided sources, indicative of attempting to prove "Subject of significant coverage", all are to the Boston Globe. This means that there are actually only two sources that count towards notability. Of the three: The first is a mundane news report that "After 35 years, Jacobson set to retire", the second, is "Life after chennal 5 and that the subject has "whale-watched in Mexico, hiked in California's redwoods, and sailed in the British Virgin Islands. She's also learned to pilot her boyfriend's 34-foot power boat on trips to Key West, the Bahamas, and Palm Beach.", and the third: Split screen discusses that both Natalie and her husband and co-anchor for two decades were leaving the show----- and each other, as he had another job, maybe with a new co-anchor to marry? All I know is that possibly well-intentioned, these are run-of-the-mill mundane "stories" that to the world and even the region are not actually "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", so would be refbombing to make an article look more notable.
Please see GNG "Sources": "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.". This would be a questionable revelation on any article but this is a BLP and the subject considered a low-profile individual in regards to WP:BLP1E. The subject should be included in the WCVB-TV article but not deserving stand-alone status. That is the rationale from the current policies and guidelines unless there is an acceptable reason to "ignore all rules" so I have amended my !vote accordingly. Otr500 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jacobson has been covered in some detail in many sources outside the Boston area, indicating national notability, for example [20], [21], [22]. The article should be enhanced with these and other secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe fact that Jacobson was the first female evening anchor in a major American city is important and a big deal from a woman's historical perspective, therefore she is not just a typical run of the mill local anchorman (Boston is one of the top six TV news markets in the US). Also she was well known outside Boston, her name even being mentioned in an episode of the sitcom "30 Rock", when the show's characters visited Boston. So Jacobson was nationally known for her local news anchor status. Furthermore, she also co-anchored the news with her husband for many years, the two being one of the few married couples to do so. Their divorce made the NY Times, Variety and the LA Times :

Jacobson was a star anchor with huge ratings and millions of viewers, at a time when personalities drove the local news. She should be seen within an historical context and not from the context of today's local news market where personalities have less of an impact on a local newscast:

http://archive.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2011/07/10/curtiss_changing_role_sign_of_times_for_local_news_affiliates/

Jacobson is also considered to be part of the Golden Age of Boston TV according to the following book :

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2017/06/15/part-history-part-memoir-look-golden-age-boston/R1Fav2ckvECQHQ0pdV1PIN/story.html

Jacobson has been mentioned in the NY Times several times, her salary being the topic of one article :

Jacobson is also inducted in Massachusetts Broadcasters Hall of Fame

http://www.massbroadcastershof.org/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-2011/natalie-jacobson/

Here is a possible quote : Chet "and his former wife, Natalie Jacobson, were the most recognizable and trusted names in the Boston television market for decades. They covered the biggest stories, including visits by Queen Elizabeth II and Nelson Mandela." :

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/longtime-boston-tv-anchor-chet-curtis-dies/article_9b936560-cc8b-5976-87b8-97fa017c0d42.html

Abonzz

Keep - She's notable for a period that is significantly pre-internet, and which pre-dates how far many RS have gone back in digitising their archives. However, even a cursory Google books search returns multiple significant mentions of her. The article needs work, but that is not of itself grounds for deletion. Mattyjohn (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Final amendment from above: "In 1976 she became the first female anchor of a Boston evening newscast..." does not equate to "first female evening anchor in a major American city"^{[dubious – discuss]} not trying to take anything away from her as she was at least among early pioneer female anchors and there were others in that time frame so this would need clear sources above what is in the article. The sources I saw, the ones in the article and the ones added that I looked at does NOT add a lot to notability. The long list of rebombed sources (including more from the Globe and Boston.com, and three from the ny times.com (count as one so there are what "four?). Some are just mundane news reports. Her longtime partner dying does not advance true notability. **BUT** Heymann! there is clear evidence to support "..."worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia. 1)- early female co-anchor, 2)- in "a period that is significantly pre-internet" so sources would be "out there" and notability is not dependant on what is in the article, and 3)- she was inducted into the "Massachusetts Broadcasters Hall of Fame".. That is a big accolade. I think big enough for her, and our poor recently passed Bozo the Clown that was also inducted, with all his regional, national, and international exposure he does not yet have an article. I am of course referring to Frank Avruch. I am not above finding a need for correction. Maybe an editor will take a shot at Bozo. I also like the sourced "possible quote". Otr500 (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:JOURNALIST. Kudos to User:Hirolovesswords for the WP:HEYMANN upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring for a moment all of the misbehaving (canvassing, casting unsupported accusations, personal attack etc.) it seems like GNG is not met and that the consensus does not consider the exhibition at Freewaves sufficient to establish WP:ARTIST notability since the film in question was apparently one among many and whether Freewaves itself is important enough is debated and debatable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Waugh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh

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

Promotional article of non-notable subject with really misleading claims and sources. Freewaves is not MOCA [23] (I got rid of that), and a short film screening at Freewaves certainly isn't enough to establish notability. His books are self published as "Carpophage Press" and cannot be used to establish notability. Carpophage is a company he directed; its only mention is on his resume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessewaugh "Carpophage Press" doesn't turn up any results in OneSearch. All its books are his [24] His own bio page [25] tries to elide the difference between having a book included in a library and being included in the permanent collection of that museum. They are not the same at all. And I'm not even getting into the claims that he has started a movement, when he is the only one following it. Theredproject (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have yet to see proof that Waugh was a substantial part of any significant art exhibition and he is all over the internet with self promotions, and this person is not regarded as an important art figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, and he did not originate anything of value (ie. nobody else uses "pulchrism" as a term for a conceptual art style, therefore it is clearly not an art movement). Jooojay (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my comments at the previous AfD and because nominator's rationale is invalid. Attempting to rewrite the article to support your attempts to delete it do not seem to be in good faith (Freewaves was held at the Museum, per the sources cited, please stop deleting accurately sourced content). The subject satisfies the GNG and WP:CREATIVE (as having exhibited at a major exhibition, as established at the prior AfD), and nothing has changed since then. The other comments about LinkedIn are irrelevant as LinkedIn has not been used as a source and the self-published books were not used to establish notability. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Waugh satisfies the criteria at CREATIVE. Freewaves is the main experimental media arts festival in the western US. I don't see that the article makes the claim that Freewaves is the same as MOCA, it just says they hosted the main portion of the festival that year, which they did. That's a red herring, in any case. Night Ranger (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Theredproject: Why would this be any different than last time? Why do you think he doesn't meet 4b of WP:CREATIVE? If you can't answer these questions, it seems clear that the tacit consensus is keep. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first AfD was predicated on 4(b) and 4(d). The discussion shows a significant dissensus about 4(b) that was WP:BLUDGEONed pretty heavily. I am also pointing out that 4(d) has no leg to stand on. And I disagree with the interpretation that a short film screening in Freewaves *alone* with *zero* other exhibitions of any legitimacy, rises to bar typically set at AfD for 4(b). I renom'd it because of this, and because I thought it was important for it to go through a peer-review with a different set of editors. Unfortunately one or two of the previous editors have been Canvassing, so we will get all of those !votes again, but I personally think it is more enlightening to hear from those that don't have a vested interest in the article, either as primary creators/editors, or having been on either side of the last Bludgeon fest.--Theredproject (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references contain trivial references or are sourced from the subject's own website, which is inappropriate. WP:CREATIVE notability criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - 4(b) is unquestioningly satisfied. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4(b) is nowhere near satisfied by an artist who has had one video included in one show with over a hundred other artists. There's nothing significant about an artist who would appear to have had three (count em, 3) film screenings and four art exhibitions in his multi-decade art career. In other words he has a minor exhibition about every three years. Seven shows in twenty years is the definition of an amateur artist, not a notable artist. Even Sunday painters typically exhibit in the annual local show. ANd the sources, Have you noticed that they are terrible and mostly non-existent in terms of critical coverage? in other words, almost nobody has noticed his career. Having read the first AfD, where the comedic claim is made that his self-published book is in the permanent collections of several major museums, thereby satisfying WP:CREATIVE (ha), I am really at a loss as to why you and a couple of other editors are again pushing this clearly non-notable artist so hard. Is Waugh a friend of yours? I really do not get it. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE - having a short video played at Freewaves does not amount to being "a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Freewaves may well count as a significant exhibition, but the requirement includes that his work must have been a substantial part of Freewaves, and that would require more than what we have here. - Bilby (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in sources. Note that I was canvassed by Special:Contributions/81.44.32.50, who asked me to vote "keep". The person canvassed others in the same manner. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that this is considered "stealth canvassing", and some of the messages are partisan/bias on voting. Does anything happen as a result of this? Jooojay (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a featured exhibit at LA Freewaves, and yes, the opening exhibit (of which Waugh was part) that year was held at the MOCA in LA. Satisfies criteria 4(b) of WP:CREATIVE, which is a key guideline of notability. Using primary sources to confirm uncontroversial facts isn't a reason to delete an article and doesn't negate the subjects notability under CREATIVE 4(b). The comments about sourcing are not a legitimate reason to delete an article about a notable subject and the comments about Waugh's self promotion elsewhere aren't relevant here. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to check, where does it say his work was a featured exhibit, as opposed to a normal part of the exhibition? I haven't seen that before. - Bilby (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The opening exhibition was at MOCA that year, so those were the initial featured exhibits. Maybe "featured" isn't the right term? He was part of the opening exhibition. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do we have a source for this? The only thing I've seen had his El Angel video as one of 12 videos screened in Program 04, which doesn't sound like that substantial a part of Freewaves. Is being one of 12 short films in the fourth video program a substantial part of of Freewaves as a whole? I wish they had an archive of the 1997 site - the best I can find is 1998, which had over 130 short films screened at the MOCA. - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - By displaying at the MOCA portion of Freewaves, he is automatically considered a substantial part of the festival. The MOCA events are the highlight of the festival. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The MOCA portion in 1998 involved over 130 videos screened over 11 days. I'm finding it hard to see how a single 2 minute short film out of (literally) hundreds of others screened at the MOCA is a "substantial part" of the festival. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        This was established at the prior deletion discussion.The quantity of films shown at the festival is irrelevant. The MOCA exhibit is the highlight of the festival. If El Angel had been part of the roadshow, that would be different. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. In 1997, there was no roadshow. Freewaves had all of their screenings at the MOCA, and every short film was played there. Just being screened there did not make an short film a "substantial part" of the exhibition. - Bilby (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Bilby, in other words, he exhibited at one of the most important festivals (if not THE most important festival) in his field (experimental videography), at the MOCA. And was important enough to be mentioned in a book for his screening. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can read it that way if you like. However, I read it as "he appeared in an early version of Freewaves, in which his 2 minute video was one of about a hundred screened over the course of the festival at its single venue, and which garnered a brief mention in a single book which goes on to describe all of the videos that played in that session". I'm not denying that being in Freewaves was important for Waugh, or that it was not an honor to be selected, nor that the work was anything other than excellent. However, what we need to know is not "was it exhibited at a major exhibition", but "was it a substantial part of a major exhibition". All I've seen are claims that it was there - to be one of a hundred+ videos played at the venue doesn't make any single work a "substantial part" on its own, nor does having a two sentences in a book show that it was a substantial part of the event. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- You're mistaken about Freewaves. They did not "screen all films at a single venue". Freewaves that year also broadcast on KCET, cable channels, and public access channels. The list of videos you're referencing are the TOTAL shown at the festival that year, including the broadcasts. Not all of them were shown at the MOCA exhibit. Also, do you have a copy of The Sons and Daughter of Los book? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They may have screened videos elsewhere, (possibly the same ones they screened at the MOCA), but based on what I have the list of films that screened at the MOCA in 1997 was around 100. We're talking about one two minute short film out of approximately 100 screened and describing it as a "substantial part" of Freewaves. That seems like a stretch. And yes, I have the book. Jesse Waugh is raised on page 181, where the author writes two sentences about El Angel. The author then discusses three other films. It shows that someone noted his film, but again it doesn't show that the short film was a substantial part of the festival.

Anyway, I don't want to keep badgering this, so I'll try to leave discussion for others. I just feel that all we've ever seen is that once, 21 years ago, Waugh had a short film appear as a small part of a significant festival. But WP:CREATIVE needs more than that. Handwaving and saying "because it was one of 100 short films screened it must have been a substantial part" just doesn't seem to be enough. - Bilby (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bilby's take on this is spot on. Screening of a two-minute video is fairly insignificant in the context of a festival where 100+ videos are screened. If the screening of this particular work had generated two or three cirtical articles abotu the work, the that would be something. However, it did not, and accordingly what we have here is a minor routine screening.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The criterion for being kept a ta second afd is not that it was kept at a previous afd. We have the right to reconsider, and we can use it , provided a reasonable time has gone by--usually interpreted as 6 months. The criterion at any afd for a artist of the sort of works collected by museums is not appearing in a show in a major museum, but being accepted into the permanent collection, which for most museums is considerably more selective. The other half of the criterion--and is is undecided whether one needs to meet one or both, is thee being substantial 3rd party studies of the works. Writing a book that's in a museum's library is normally not enough. (There is a special case with the art form known as artist's books, which may be collected and located as a special collection in a museum library--I don't think that applies here. Being used as the cover of a book is not enough, but it does pose the need for further checking--and the book turns out to be a self-published comic novel [26] The next question is whether it meets the criterion for FILM, and just being shown as an experiemental film in two shows does not. For details there, I refer to Bilby's analysis.

The impression left here is of a not yet notable artist trying to sound established by including everything possible, even inclusion of the work in a student exhibition. That has a unmistakable tone of promotionalism , and that's another reason for rejection. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the majority of this. Are you really accusing me of using Wikipedia for promotion? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. If you wrote the entire article, you wrote something promotional, yes. Without a doubt it is very puffed up. However you are not a lesser person for it.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what a hype job! Any accomplishments here (which are largely hyped up non-accomplishments) are entirely routine. Showing at a single festival opening does not get you notability. The sourcing and the accomplishments are both routine. There is nothing exceptional here that would meet WP:CREATIVE or even WP:GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block this vandal/troll? ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing admin The Master intentionally removed my vote and comments above, which I have restored. I have voted at 100s of AfDs and that has never happened. something funny going on here.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized the article three times and then "voted" here as a thinly-veiled personal attack. Anyone who isn't an idiot can see what you're doing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I vote at many AFDs. I agreed above with the respected DGG, that the article was promotional. The only person making personal attacks here is you. Please refrain from deleting the valid votes of editors.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this puff piece. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not come close to clearing the bar for notability as detailed in WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST and as applied to other artist's bios in previous cases. I am thankful for the footwork other editors have done in the discussions above, but I do not find the arguments for the retention of the article, as presented in this and in the previous AfD, convincing. Marteau (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing admin User:Jessewaugh, the subject of the article, made and then deleted a series of ad-hominem attacks on myself and another editor. They are preserved in the edit history. Theredproject (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin: I am the subject of this article, and though I know it is frowned upon for me to post anything here, I want to state for the record that I believe that this is a politically motivated deletion. Both Michael Mandiberg AKA Theredproject, the editor who proposed this deletion, and Jooojay, the primary supporter of this deletion, openly espouse and advocate for feminism - as is noted on their user pages. I believe that this creates a conflict of interest in their dealings with subject matter pertaining to males. Essentially, I believe they are biased. I also believe that they employ gang tactics as part of their attempt to purge Wikipedia of articles about men -- especially white men such as myself. I do not expect you to accept what I'm writing here, but I will be satisfied to know that it shall remain on the record for people to read when this colossally unjust witch hunt of anything male finally subsides, and people of both genders return to some modicum of sanity. Jessewaugh (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. Your biography is being deleted because you do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It's as simple as that. The notion that Wikipedia is trying to purge white men is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just goign to say the same thing... This page is being deleted because the "artist" it covers has basically no notable achievements, as demonstrated by the lack of reliable sources covering such achievements. Unfortunately mailing copies of a self published book to the major museums and then boldly claiming it is in their permanent collection (false) is not included in WP:CREATIVE.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You live in Oakland, so I think it’s safe to assume your political bias. If I don’t meet Wikipedia’s notability standards then how is this the second deletion nomination? And Theroadislong disagrees with you - here’s a quote they just wrote on my user page: “It appears to me that you are probably notable enough for an article.” You’re just another bandwagon leftist Binksternet - when they’re finished with me who do you think they’re coming after? You’re the wrong gender, buddy - also the wrong race - so it’s only a matter of time before they purge you too. Don’t come crying to me when they do.Jessewaugh (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Theredproject: This whole kangaroo court we're suffering is you and your man-hating minions launching an ad-hominem attack against me for being a White male artist. You'll of course claim otherwise and try to gaslight me for stating the obvious, but we all know the truth: Your entire paradigm is failing, and like jackals, you feminazis gang up on any subject you perceive to have a weakness in your quest to purge Wikipedia of men. That and you're personally frustrated that your non-art gets exhibited but no recognition because it is meaningless, Michael Mandiberg. Let it be known that the previous sentence is no more a personal attack than is this whole Kafkaesque stoning of me. Notability no longer depends on your monopolized dinosaur media, and that's why Everipedia is soon going to eclipse Wikipedia and leave it as a relic - along with your petty, purposeless power. Jessewaugh (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Presumably, this will be deleted. Can whomever closes this please userfy it for me? In the event the subject obtains additional mainstream media coverage I want to be able to revise it. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 19:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, according to WorldCat (yes i know its not perfect but it is good as an indicator of the impact of a person's books), Waugh's books Jesse Waugh: Portrait of an Artist and His Strivings for Pulchrism held by 4 libraries, other books don't appear to be held (and here), also a gsearch ("jesse waugh book reviews"), brings up zero reviews in the 1st 10 pages of results. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Because I am a "white male" and dislike other white males. Maybe I don't like artists. Wait! My daughter is an artist so that can't be it. Maybe I just don't care for the comments by the apparent subject. Oh Lord, please don't tell me I am a "minion". It is possible that I looked at the article and references, also the Google thing, and agree with other delete !votes such as the nominator (that I do not know) that the article is a "Promotional article of non-notable subject". I have the opinion that the subject should have or keep an article on that Everipedia as apparently anything can be placed there. Otr500 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as per WP:CREATIVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.32.50 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — 81.44.32.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

note that the above account massively canvassed other editors104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There’s something fishy going on here. As stated by Justin (koavf) above, what has changed since the last vote? 2A00:23C4:2B0C:4700:1934:B5CF:8629:C204 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)— 2A00:23C4:2B0C:4700:1934:B5CF:8629:C204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment To the closing admin: The nominator canvassed DGG's vote (while simultaneously complaining about vote canvassing) [27]. It probably doesn't matter anymore, but if I'm going to be accused of spamming Wikipedia let's at least set the record straight here. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. You will see that what I did was 100% appropriate. Theredproject (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His work is mentioned in a book. I wish I had access to the Marie Claire article from 2002 as well as the video sources, but the information seems verifiable, and having his art displayed that many times is notable via WP:ARTIST for "The person's work" has "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". If those sources (which I don't have access to) contain significant discussion about him, he also passes WP:GNG. I don't see any evidence that those sources are fake, and even without them, I think this person is just notable enough for an entry. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which work was part of which substantial exhibition. If you mean the video screening at Freewaves, one video in a hundred person show is not substantial. it's 1% of the show, or less.104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lonehexagon I have added a link to an archive of the Marie Claire article. It introduces a "Jesse" (no last name) in an an article where a woman is challenged to discover the "secret" of five men in a series of five minute interviews. Jesse's secret is that he's homeless. It is used to cite the fact that he travelled returned to the US. How this helps to establish anything when it doesn't even identify him is beyond me. Mduvekot (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Per Bilby's substantial arguments and per GigglesnortHotel's empty arguments. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete, Salt, Do NOt Userfy. That would include attempts at end runs such as User:GigglesnortHotel/sandbox. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the 3rd AfD. The first time around, the page was called Jesse R. Waugh, and it got deleted at AfD. The first Waugh article was also created by a sock-- here is the SPI, and it is worth noting that there were several sockpuppets voting there, using similar language as is used above. This article and its repeated AfD discussions are about the stinkiest piece of cheese that I have seen on the wiki. Or maybe I mean most duck-like. In any case, if the result is delete, I think some salt is in order, and probably an SPI, as the article subject seems hell bent on ensuring its inclusion. It's also on the French, Italian German, Chinese wikis, and so on. (Full list on his site says he is on these wikis, which I cannot be bothered to link: English, Français, Italiano, Deutsch, Español, 日本語, עברית, हिन्दी, العربية, Русский, 中文.) 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified two delete !voters and two keep !voters from the original AFD that this discussion is ongoing, per WP:APPNOTE.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013 the result of the AfD discussion was delete and salt. One cannot help but notice the persistent recreation of this page, as well as the multiple sockpuppets at the first AfD.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I nominated the first version of this article in 2013, Jesse R. Waugh was not notable by Wikipedia standards and I don't see anything that has changed since then. My recommendation to Jesse Waugh is that you are a good artist. Keep at it and some day, if you receive the level of recognition required here, an editor will create an article about you. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject comprehensively fails WP:GNG and passes none of the alternative criteria at WP:ARTIST. DGG pretty much said it all. Nevertheless, I carefully went through all the references to make sure. Bear with me...

Own website bio
James, David E. (2003). The Sons and Daughters of Los. Temple University Press. The only potentially valid source for supporting notability. However, as was pointed out in the 2nd previous AfD, this consisted of a 2 sentence description of the film, as was done for ~~all the 100+~~ several of the video films shown. Note also the 5th Freewaves Festival was held in August-September 1996, not 1997 as stated in the article. See [28] and [29]. The latter link is to the official Freewaves website which explicitly states that 140 artists were shown at MOCA in the Fifth Freewaves Festival. This is does not equate to being "featured", nor was his work notable enough for a review anywhere. It comes nowhere near passing 4.b of WP:Artist: "The person's work (or works) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." (my bolding). It comprehensively fails 4.a, 4.c and 4.d as well a criteria 1, 2, and 3.
"Each of These Men Has a Secret", Marie Claire article. According to the abstract the article "Details the challenge to a woman to discover the true personality of six persons through conversation in the United States." This does not constitute significant coverage of either the artist or his work. Update: scan of full article is here. Note that Waugh is simply refreed to as "Jesse".
Catalogue of a 2015 MA student exhibition at Brighton University. Student exhibitions, particularly when there has been no critical notice whatsoever taken of the artist, do not attest to notability. They simply verify that the subject was a student there.
The Amazon (Episode 1)". Access 360 World Heritage. National Geographic Channel. September 22, 2012 No link. I accessed this at the National Geographic website and there is no mention of either Waugh or his video footage [30]. See also [31]. Even if it were verifiable (which it is not) that some video footage he shot was used in an episode, this does not attest to his notability at all. Note that Waugh uploaded what purports to be a video clip from the episode here. His name is listed at the very end as one of 5 people/organizations who supplied "stock footage".
"Episode One". Rocket Science. BBC Two. 6 March 2009 No verification of this whatsoever on the BBC website. There is a brief BBC promotional clip on YouTube posted by Prismania (one of Waugh's companies). For a couple of seconds it shows children handling perfectly ordinary (not "artistic") prisms. This does not attest to notability at all, even if it were verifiable.
The copyright page of The Rise and Fall of the Trevor Whitney Gallery, an utterly non-notable novel self-published by its author Lauren Rabb). It is used to assert that "one of his paintings, a reworking of a Martin Johnson Heade painting", was used as the cover for the book. Well, so what? Particularly when you compare the paintings. They are virtually identical: Waugh and Heade. He simply copied Heade's work. Does not attest to notability at all.
19th century source which has nothing to do with Waugh
Ditto
Description of Waugh's self-published book on his own website
Ditto
Luis Campos Baca (2003), Nanay – Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia, Rhode Island: Brown University. Unverifiable and is masquerading as a "publication". It is not. Campos Baca doesn't even mention it in his CV. Nanay, described as an "Art film screening", was shown at a Brown University Watson Institute seminar because Campos Baca was a graduate student there at the time. Absolutely nothing has been written about this short film.
"2008 Pill Awards Broadcast". New York: ADD-TV. January 27, 2008. Unverifiable and not even a claim to having won one of the awards. No mention of him in this trailer. He was definitely not one of the "short film" nominees [32]. No critical notice taken whatsoever of the two shorts allegedly broadcast, El Angel and Hydrophobe.
Waugh, Jesse. "EXHIBITION". Documentary Film. This verifies nothing, let alone that he had a "solo exhibition" at the "Free Exhibition Not Prostitution Gallery". No critical notice has been taken of this whatsoever. More importantly, the WP article fails to mention that Waugh owned this defunct "gallery", see [33].
Poster uploaded by Waugh for the 2015 MA student exhibition (yet again)
"Unsere Künstler". Ingeborg Verlag.. Utterly non-notable German self-publishing and marketing company for books and postcards by "their artists". Not to be confused with Ingeborg Hanreich Verlag
"Brighton MA Exhibition 2015". Artelogical. July 5, 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2016. This is a blog by a fellow student on the 2015 MA. The mention consists of one sentence "Finally, if by the end of the exhibition you are feeling a little arted out, you could relax with Jesse Waugh’s relaxing film of Brighton sea, Beauty Sublime."
Flier for the 2015 MA student exhibition (yet again)

Despite extensive searching, I could find nothing better. Note: I was notified of this discussion as I had previously participated in the first AfD for Waugh. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (Updated/corrected by Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per Voceditenore's demolishment of the "sources"; what appears at first site to be a solid collection turns out to possess neither the breadth or persistence of coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources to pass the absolute minimum requirements placed on it by WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I seldom, if ever, !vote 'per X' but I think the claims to notability, or lack there of, have been well addressed by others. I could not find anything new to support notability. Jbh ^Talk 13:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep not sure why so much bloodlust here. Regardless, I am satisfied with the subject's notability, which has been adequately sourced. It really seems like some of the !votes here come with ulterior motives. 95.125.177.246 (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC) — 95.125.177.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Notability not established, per Voceditenore's detailed review of sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sources do not establish that the subject has received significant critical attention, or that has work has been exhibited or collected by notable institutions. Mduvekot (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 16:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Not really a fan of these WP:VANISPAM subjects who try to get on here through pure force and wearing down editors through personal and political attacks and finding every IP they can to try to keep an article. The subject has no notability and like someone in this same vein we had to take to AfD five times, Eric West, it's time to pull the welcome mat. Also salt Jess Waugh so we don't have to go through this again under another form of the name. Nate • (chatter) 17:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse R. Waugh (artist) and Jesse Waugh (artist) too. Although I am willing to bet that will not be enough.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought it a shame that the software doesn't let us thank IP contributors. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thank you for those additions. Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that yet another permutation Jesse R Waugh (without the period after the "R") is already salted after being created and deleted twice, as is Jesse R. Waugh. In fact this article (Jesse Waugh) was salted once too [34], but was recreated after the current creator successfully asked for page protection to be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Learn something every day. I have not seen Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement (VANISPAM) and can see it has sound reasoning. This AFD has become a circus of attacks and I have noticed several times where salted titles are re-created by adding a simple variation. I think when this becomes evident there should be a speedy delete option. This creative ability to hamper the Wikipedia process, effectively nullifying an admins rights, is sometimes well-used. The protection, according to the policy: "This is useful for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated.", but seems woefully ineffective. Maybe we need an added WP:DUMPTRUCKSALT In my opinion a ban should be considered on an editor that barges into a Wikipedia process (especially the subject of the article), tries to steer it like a new Cadillac, and goes off the deep end against editors and Wikipedia. I would also think someone would consider sanctions against any editor that deletes the valid votes of other editors. To me that is an egregious violation and personal attack. I commend editors and closers for starting to look more closely at these things. Otr500 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt liberally and do not userfy. Enough is enough, and there's enough intent to deceive here to last us a good long time. Voceditenore has convincingly shown that there is no independent reliable in-depth coverage whatsoever in any of the sources in the page, and searching does not come up with more (four false positives on JSTOR, nothing on EBSCO, etc). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What never ceases to amaze me is the determination of certain members of "the Wikipedia community" to turn boring procedural discussions into drama fests and accusations of bad faith. This "discussion" has become, frankly, fucking ridiculous. Can an uninvolved admin please review and make a decision? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Master, this issue goes back to 2013 and all of the sock puppetry that occurred back then and all the IP sock puppetry that is occurring now. This level of sock puppetry is not common for AfDs in general. That is why many members of the community would like to see this salted. This is a long-term behavioral issue, which has become disruptive.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

drama fests and accusations of bad faith That would mostly be on the part of the article subject and, well, you. You've chosen a weird hill to die on, is all I can say. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment there has been so much Sockpuppeting here and in the past AFD's that I believe someone should start an SPI, as the SPA IP accounts that are keep voting both geolocate to Spain, which is where a certain article subject apparently visits often.104.163.147.121 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

here's the SPI. I should really be working on some real world things, but this is good procrastination.104.163.147.121 (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired the link for you, no other refactoring. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly per Voceditenore. Does not look to pass GNG (as much as anyone wants to argue the details of WP:CREATIVE, the lead-in to the criteria is important -- meeting them means the subject would be likely to be notable; a subject isn't simply autonotable upon meeting those subjective criteria because notability is about sources and a guideline like that is just an indication that sources should exist). Also, this whole page is a mess. Kind of an interesting mess, though. I will have to ponder the social and historical implications of the phrasing "unjust witch hunt of anything male". To be clear, though, the sketchiness on this page is not entirely on the side of the keeps. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist definitely exists but does not meet our notability guideline for artists. Inclusion of a short film in a group showing of over 100 short films decades ago does not come close to establishing the notability of a motion picture artist. His accomplishments as a painter contribute even less to notability. Sources are weak. The sociopolitical hollering and trolling in this debate is irrelevant. I am a straight white male and make my AfD recommendations based on the quality of any available sources and the topic's compliance with our notability guidelines. I am happy to keep and help improve any biography of any notable person, no matter the race, gender, orientation, age, or moral character of the subject. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per analysis by Bilby and Voceditenore. The personal attacks by the subject of the article on participants in this discussion are pretty unsavoury; I can understand that having your article dissected in this matter must not be a pleasant experience, but try to address the argument rather than the arguer. I'd note that some of the comments on the "delete" side are also a little unnecessarily personal. In the end, having your article on Wikipedia deleted is not the end of the world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Towers at Wyncote[edit]

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

Non-notable apartment complex. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee McAteer[edit]

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

Sources are non-independent, some are blatant promotion. Article is WP:Reference bombed, I didn't check all sources, but the leading sources that supposedly speak to notability fail. This article is promoting a CEO and his adventure company. Fails WP:BIO, as written it should be merged into the company article which fails WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, the sources all discuss this person in the context of his (non-notable) company. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it appears that he passes WP:GNG with coverage sources such as The Independent, MoneyWeek and Manchester Evening News, despite spammy coverage such as Daily Mail and The Sun. Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute The Independent, and Manchester Evening News can be considered WP:INDEPENDENT. They are feature stories repeating company supplied information and lacking editorial commentary, it is advertorial. Not independent, not a secondary source, not useful for speaking to Wikipedia-notability. MoneyWeek? To what MoneyWeek source do you refer? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I dispute the claims of advertorial above - those are clearly simple business profiles. Both the MEN and The Independent clearly mark sponsored or advertorial content. I have no strong feelings about retention or deletion of this piece, but the assertion of advertorial seems clearly incorrect. Mattyjohn (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look a bit more carefully at (1) the language; (2) the facts presented; and (3) the opinions presented. The language is all gosh-gosh-gosh. The facts are all subject-supplied, it’s just an interview rewritten in third person, and opinions, there are not author-opinions. It’s non-critical puff. Advertorial is the word. It’s non-independent, and it’s not secondary source material. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is quite possibly a paid for article and the refs too, but that would be quite elaborate and impossible to prove ? Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability is not there; promo 'cruft. Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not notable outside of his company. Whether his company is notable or not is another story, but this article has little content beyond info about his company and no coverage to expand beyond it. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Requires a judgement call on whether the refs are independent, its a close call but on balance delete. Szzuk (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Disagree with Fenix Feather, company seems to be discussed in context of his involvement minus the last half of the final paragraph. Not an expert, but agree that WP:GNG is met through coverage in reliable second party sources. Cut down to bare essentials that belong if it stays. Cayenne kid (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hugely cut, but still needs to be deleted. I’m guessing you think the interview articles are independent and meet the GNG? They are not. Interviews are not to be considered independent coverage. Regardless, a more straightforward testing is against WP:CORP, noting everything is about his company. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Business profiles are the epitome of PR, and are not reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vournas Coffee Trading[edit]

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

A family coffee importing company that has attracted no media attention other than in a few specialty trade papers. Arguably should be deleted as a CSD#A7 except that the article's "Advocacy" section might, at a great stretch, be seen as a claim to notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more details on the advocacy, and also a line for certification. They're pretty well-known in the brewing world, as they're a top source of fair trade coffee. They're not usually covered in the media probably because the stories aren't as big as to get more people hooked to the story, but they're doing good things behind the scenes.Deguzmanjohn73 (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've looked into gBooks Search and they've been referenced by 50 published books. To make sure they're all related, I've used the search operator "Vournas * trading" which would look for the exact match, with the asterisk as the wildcard. Almost all results were related to coffee. Other than Vournas Coffee Trading, no other company bares any likeness to their brand name in google search Gerhard.Angeles (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Gerhard.Angeles, I respectfully don't think you're using gBooks search the right way. When I look at the first ten books using your search, only one mentions "Vournas" at all and that's only in two passing phrases (see From Modern Production to Imagined Primitive: The Social World of Coffee, by Paige West). The others either aren't searchable or don't mention Vournas. The problem is that when you search for the phrase "Vournas * Trading", gBooks will show you a wide range of books that it believes might be relevant to the subject matter - in this case, some very interesting books on coffee. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. I've been using Google and gBooks for a while. The way Google search operators work is has been identical across their search products. I did try a few more with the search operators and most of the time, it does return very related books that may contain the entity (company, person, topic). I'm not entirely sure, though. Gerhard.Angeles (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at hits 11 through 20 of your list individually, search for "Vournas" in the text, and come back and share with us the text of any actual mentions you get. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looked into this, and you're right. Had to comb through different digital versions of the books and didn't find a match (0/3) Gerhard.Angeles(talk) 06:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure if this counts as notable, but they're listed in Bloomberg, and the data was provided by S&P Market Intelligence. I've looked into 20 of the companies that are up for deletion, 1 of 20 companies (Afzal motors) had the same listing in Bloomberg. It might be something, but I don't know. They were also used by Tea & Coffee Trade Journal in 2009 as a resource for coffee packaging. Deguzmanjohn73 (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2018

Delete all of the mentions, in the books results above, the information I can find on the web, and everything cited in the article are passing at best or are from the company's website. Cannot find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiftytwo thirty Would this be considered Court filing? Also, they were recognized by usaid, and is part of their Ethiopian Coffee Buying Manual, and also here. They're recognized by cdfa too. They're also included in the list of Coffee Manufacturers in Azusa Pacific University (Azusa Pacific)' COMM 111H Intro to Public Communications Course notes. Deguzmanjohn73 (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all passing mentions at best -- they list the company's name and nothing more. In order to be notable, there needs to be substantial, independent, third party coverage (all three, at once). Everything about this company except from its own website simply says that it is a coffee trading firm. In order to be notable, there needs to be coverage that explains the company in depth from an outsiders. See WP:CORPDEPTH. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted here. Although, they've been mentioned a lot of times by coffee-related websites, which of course are niched markets. They have a profile in Wallstreet, are mentioned by the Tea & Coffee journal, has several accreditation, and are recognized by the government. With all due respect, I don't think Forbes or New York Times would do a full-blown article on a coffee trading company, even with a business their scale. I'll leave the decision up to the community moderators. I have nothing more to add here. Deguzmanjohn73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities Wire[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA. Cannot find any secondary source coverage that meets requirements. Rogermx (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A high circulation is a strong indicator of notability. If a periodical has been read by ten thousand people, that might possibly be enough to render it notable. James500 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any source that verifies their circulation claims. In fact, none of the references for Twin Cities could be considered reliable or even relevant. Rogermx (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure how to go about checking that figure. Twincitieswire.com does not appear to have a page on alexa.com. Is there not something like the Audit Bureau of Circulation that can be used to check circulations? James500 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much no secondary source material on this at all. No substantiation of claims of circulation. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the circulation figure might potentially be an indicator of notability if it could be verified, but it isn't, and there are no sources about the publication itself that would pass this past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UZURV[edit]

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

The cited sources are all churnalism, just recycled press releases. No substantive independent coverage. Small private company, created by a likely paid editor and all substantive edits almost certainly by the company's PR. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Written by now banned editor with undeclared COI.--Theredproject (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage for startup. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churnalism & weak local news blurbs insufficient depth as said by nominator. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would for sure fails the new WP:NCORP standard. scope_creep (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - three short sentences. Not even an attempt at an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two aspects of Statistical Consulting[edit]

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

Umm... Contested PROD... WP:NOTESSAY? GMG ^talk 17:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - related topics (there are plenty already) may be fine but this is pure essay, and an abortive one at that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A10 of Methodological advisor and maybe something to do with Statistical consultancy process and Statistical Consulting’ aspects etc. Spam. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I'm not sure it's spam. It looks like it might be a student who hasn't figured out how we segment article topics yet. Didn't A10 myself because I couldn't think of anything it perfectly duplicated. GMG ^talk 19:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't see the similarly titled articles deleted earlier today so I will defer to an admin on the motivations here. It's so short. I don't know, apparently WP:ACPERM will fix this issue. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ryuji Masuda. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popee the Performer[edit]

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

Fails notability, only sources are Twitter and YouTube. _{Vermont | reply here} 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ryuji Masuda the creator of the show. There's no indication this series is notable other than that it has a non-notable meme associated with it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ryuji Masuda - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ektomorf[edit]

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

Came acroos this while creating redirects for seemingly nn albums by this band. The band may well be notable- they have been around for long enough, but there is nothing here to suggest that they are. TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they have a Allmusic bio here and four professional album reviews, together with magazine coverage in the more comprehensive Hungarian language article which can be used to expand this stub Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hungarian article provides sufficient content and sourcing to establish notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was speedily deleted at 18:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC) by RHaworth with the deletion rationale being: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sacramento-police-shooting-20180320-story.html. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Stephon Clark[edit]

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

PRODed as WP:NOTNEWS; PROD removed without explanation by page creator. Sadly theshooting of a black man by US law enforcement officers is not uncommon. TheLongTone (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Greek television schedule[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. WP is not meant to be a directory of everything that has ever existed. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar efforts to delete historic US television schedules in the basis of WP:NOTTVGUIDE have failed, since that guideline says "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." TV Guide helps you choose what to watch out of the programs which are going to be available to watch, now or in the future. No one is going to try and use a 2010 schedule to try to decide what to watch. I do not have the ability to read Greek writings about television programming decisions, but in the US case there is quite a bit of reliable sourcing with discussion of how scheduling decisions aided or hurt viewership of programs. Having block of comedy or drama on a given evening helped create "must see TV" in the era before Netflix binge watching and digital VCRs. Putting a popular program up against some ultra-popular show might be its death knell.The history of what programs were broadcast on what nights, at what time, against what competition, is a notable part of modern culture. Edison (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison:-while you're certainly over-stating the importance of such articles, look at what currently exists at 2009–10 Greek television schedule. It includes one block, without running dates or deviation. It includes "various programming." I see no encyclopedic value, nor could I imagine any. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you said amounts to IDONTLIKEIT. My comments stand. Edison (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying amounts to IDOLIKEIT. My comments stand. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding Edison's explanation (which works for the American schedules because we require deep sourcing and maintenance on that series of articles), this is a truly abandoned article. We have no other "20XX–XX Greek television schedule" articles, and this was the last edit ever by the article creator. The only edits since that first one are mainly category changes and coloring with zero attempt by anybody to source the article. It only links out to international product; not one domestic series has a link out in this article, which means it is an orphan article by most definitions. Most of all, we have only the morning schedule for this article. This claims it has the entire Greek broadcast schedule for the entire season. That didn't happen by any stretch of the imagination, and we're not keeping an article that is only a quarter complete. Nate • (chatter) 16:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsoured trivia. TV schedules, past or present, still fail WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't documenting a historically notable programming block like Must See TV, and reads more like just a TV listing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no encyclopedic value.--Rpclod (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:NOTTVGUIDE. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Windows (album)[edit]

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

Unsourced for well over eight years and for good reason--no sources really exist. After trying to search for the album through the band name and Brian Larson, I could not find one substantial secondary source to satisfy GNG. The only thing I could do was verify its existence, but that alone doe: not give reason to keep an article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; could only find one good secondary source. Otherwise, this album is far from WP:NOTEABLE. Waterco4 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plexus (Law firm)[edit]

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

Could not find significant independent coverage of the firm itself (just passing mentions, coverage of or interviews with lawyers from the firm, and non-independent coverage). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as non-notable and clearly promotional. --‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about this one. Random mentions from low coverage sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a barrage of buzzwords doesn't obscure the fact that this seems to be a garden variety legal firm. A few mentions in general interest reliable sources, but nothing that is substantially about them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Revelle[edit]

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

A WP:BLP lacking references since tagged in 2011. As a county executive, fails WP:POLITICIAN. A before search turned up some articles on his mental health work, but I don't believe that makes him notable. SportingFlyer talk 07:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As in New Jersey, being a county executive is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass that guarantees a person a Wikipedia article just because he exists — but there's not nearly enough sourcing or substance being shown here to deem him as clearing the bar that separates a notable county executive from a non-notable one. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep County executive of a county greater than 2,000,000 people now. Also, member of the Seattle City Council (1974-1981). Some non-regional coverage quickly found in the New York Times and a mention in the Washington Post, as well as several wire stories about his negotiations about the Seattle Kingdome. It is hard to imagine that the county executive in one of the 15 largest counties in the United States would not have received additional significant press coverage for their work. --Enos733 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The population size of a county is irrelevant to notability or not — the inclusion test for county-level politicians is their degree and depth and range of sourceability, not how many people do or don't live in that county. And neither of those media hits you showed bolsters notability at all, because they're both mere blurbs that mention his name without being about him accomplishing anything that would pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As seen in existing practice and as described in WP:POLOUTCOMES, there are existing descriptors that population has an effect on how we view elected officials. "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD," and "although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas." While there are caveats attached to both, (e.g. "the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'") there is a common sense approach to recognizing there is a qualitative difference in how we should approach the Mayor of Milwaukee, and the Mayor of Abbotsford. In the former case, there is a natural presumption that there would be significant, contemporary coverage of Mayor of the largest city in the State, while there is no such presumption for the Mayor of a city of less than 2500. Similarly, the standard should be similar for independently elected county executives. County executives of large counties may not receive much national or international coverage, but their actions would very likely receive in-depth contemporary coverage (even if not shown in the article that is nominated), and the sheer size of the jurisdiction does influence how we should approach an article. --Enos733 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is WP:POLOUTCOMES is a lagging indicator of how AfDs work. If you look at WP:POLITICIAN, which are the criteria, WP:POLOUTCOMES probably indicates the larger cities probably have more notable press coverage to satisfy #2. In any case, #2 basically says he has to satisfy WP:GNG, and I don't think he does. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that AfDs on local elected officials still cut multiple ways. Most elected officials from smaller jurisdictions are uncontroversially deleted, but once the city reaches a certain size and get coverage from their local, but regional paper, there is more discussion and a diverse set of arguments made. The result sometimes depend on who actually comments on the article, rather than any set criteria, largely because mayors of regional cities (and councilmembers of large jurisdictions) receive coverage of their campaigns and coverage of their actions (with a bias toward the executive in each jurisdiction). To me, this is common sense, and the size of jurisdiction helps answer the questions we ask of a BLP. --Enos733 (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The size of jurisdiction does not, however, confer an automatic exemption from a local politician's article having to be referenced significantly better than this is. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional sources of the subject's life and career - footnoted. History Link. --Enos733 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author credit on that is "This essay made possible by: King County". That makes it a primary source created by his own employer, not a notability-assisting independent source. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was discussing the footnotes at the end of the article, which do show Revelle was covered in local news, which is as expected. SportingFlyer talk 03:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historylink supplies sufficient depth of coverage to meet GNG. The fact that HistoryLink gets government support doesn't change a highly valued tertiary source into a primary source; that's like saying we can't trust anything from libraries and universities because they get support from government. It's a public non-profit written by recognized experts, and professionally edited and fact checked. Even without that, the ongoing role of Revelle as spokesman and activist for people with mental health issues, and roles in several medical and mental health groups has been covered locally and nationally spanning multiple decades. KC Exec also meets WP:POLITICIAN, IMHO. -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether the organization has received financial support from the government — it's a question of the county government itself having directly created and submitted the specific piece of content under discussion. It's not about where the operating budget funding came from, it's about where the content came from. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question is a stretch of the meaning (and primary concern) of WP:PRIMARY). The purpose of WP:PRIMARY is to prevent unsourced, or unverifiable material from serving as the primary source of an article. In practice, a primary source is a blog, press release, or company promotional statement. But, not everything produced by a company is a concern, such as a list of elected officials, a record of official votes, or election results, because inherently, there is no interpretation of the material. Either a person served(s) in office or not. That said, HistoryLink is an independent organization from any government. And even if it were, the sources included in the article would not be a concern. --Enos733 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a stretch of the meaning or primary concern of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Content produced by an organization that a person was directly affiliated with — its own "our staff" or "our members" profiles, etc. — certainly serves as verification that they held the claimed role, but it doesn't serve as evidence of notability. It doesn't matter that the county government republished its existing content to a separate platform after his retirement from office meant that there was no place for it on their own website anymore — because they still wrote the content themselves. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's incredibly flawed logic regarding the library analogy. Instead, this reason this source doesn't fly is similar to a company paying a business publication to write an article about them - it's not actually independently notable. County executives do not meet WP:POLITICIAN per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The reason why so many are blue-linked is because all but two of them held other important statewide posts. SportingFlyer talk 03:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat and SportingFlyer: you can presume that I read what you posted because my post came after yours. As I was composing my post, your posts were right there, literally on the same page I was typing on. So you don’t need to repeat your arguments at me. I’m cognizant if your assetions, and I disagree. Frank Chesley is not a King County employee and his work is objective and reliable. I get that you don’t think so. You think the KC Executive doesn’t meet POL #2, and I disagree. It’s a major local office. Not a municipal office, not a county legislator. You can’t generalize about these offices in every US state; the power and scope of these offices varies. I judge this one to meet criterion #2 because I disagree with the arguments you posted 2+ times. Even if it fails POL, it passes GNG at least two different ways, in my opinion, which I formed with the awareness of what your opinion is. –Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but WP:NPOL does not shoehorn in automatic notability for county executives as it is not a statewide office. POL #2 is specific to the individual politician. The article was lacking references when it was nominated and the I don't believe the ones that have been found since the AfD are enough to get past the WP:GNG threshold; the NYT and WaPost articles from earlier have only trivial mentions of him, and the HistoryLink article is questionable. I wouldn't have a problem if someone wanted to draftify the article in case some of the sources from the 80's in the HistoryLink article are feature stories on him. SportingFlyer talk 05:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think these three sources would provide the in-depth feature you may be looking for (one is a book), Rabbi Raphael Levine, Profiles in Service (Seattle: Evergreen Publishing Co., 1985); Joel Connelly, "Revelle -- Seattle's Power Man," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 14, 1980 and Dan Coughlin, "Revelle's Record: a Stormy Four Years," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 30, 1985. --Enos733 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can find them through the usual sources. SportingFlyer talk 06:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, I know you don't think this subject meets WP:POL #2. You already said it twice before I posted, and then you replied to me with a third assertion that you don't thin it meets that, I explained that really was aware (really!) that you disagreed, and you've replied again (for the FOURTH TIME) that you don't think that it meets POL #2. I get it, SportingFlyer. You don't need to tell me again because I've acknowledged explicitly that I know you disagree with me about this. I got it the first time you said it. I still think King County Executive is a "major local political figure", and I see nothing in WP:POLOUTCOMES that contradicts that. I also know you don't think this subject passes GNG, yet still I disagree. You don't need to reply again and point out what it is we disagree about. Have you read WP:BLUDGEON, ever? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with WP:BLUDGEON and I'm surprised and unhappy you're accusing me of it here in what has been a fairly constructive discussion with a small number of participants. I don't disagree with you on #2, I'm simply letting you know you're interpreting #2 incorrectly (the question isn't is King County Executive is a major local political figure, it's if Revelle is; the county executive is NOT a statewide position, so the position itself cannot convey notability) and that I'm happy to look at other sources which may show notability under WP:GNG, if you know of any. SportingFlyer talk 06:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you said that several times. I think being elected KC Executive makes one a major local political figure, and you don't. You can go on repeating it but no matter how many times you repost the same thing, nothing changes. We all heard you the first time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Major local political figure" is not a factor of what title the person holds — every single mayor of anywhere, every single city councillor anywhere, every single school board trustee anywhere, could always claim to be a "major local political figure" by sheer virtue of holding the political office that they hold. Majorness is measured by the depth of sourceability that is or isn't present to support a detailed and substantive article about the person, not just by the title the person happens to hold. No political office at the local level — not mayor, not city councillor, not county executive, etc. — gets an automatic notability freebie just for existing: it's the depth of sourcing and substance that tells us whether a local officeholder is "major" enough to pass NPOL #2, not just the fact of holding office in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly baffled at this insistence on beating this dead horse. I heard you the first time. I really, really, really do grasp the points of the argument you are making. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet your entire argument continues to be based on ignoring the very point you claim to understand. SportingFlyer and I are not expressing personal opinions here — we're stating the facts of how notability on Wikipedia works for local political officeholders, and instead of actually showing any improved evidence of how Revelle actually satisfies any of the facts of how notability works for local political officeholders you just keep reasserting that you understand what we're saying while completely failing to shift your core notability argument to account for what we're saying. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you think I'm misreading the guideline. I don't know how many different ways I can acknowledge the fact that I know you think my interpretation of the WP:POLITICIAN guideline is wrong. I think you ought to assume good faith when I assure you I have read both your arguments and the guideline, and am not ignoring either. It's just that your arguments didn't convince me. Which is OK. It happens and that's fine. I'm also aware that my arguments didn't convince you. WP:BADGER, WP:COMPULSORY, WP:WABBITSEASON are just some of the pages that discuss the fact that arguments that one finds unconvincing can be left alone. Since it's not a vote and the closing process is all about disregarding poor arguments, it isn't necessary to get me to see the light at any cost. If I am utterly wrong, then we can all trust that the closing editor will disregard what I say. Maybe it will help if I break this down. Here:

The words say "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", and I don't see how anyone could expect that all editors would agree all the time as to what qualifies as "major" and "significant". Maybe you think I think it says "Local political figures are automatically notable"? I don't think it says that. I think it says they can be notable if the political figure is local, that is, below a statewide office, but something greater than dog catcher. POLOUTCOMES suggests they must be greater than municipal (city) level -- higher than a mayor, and not a county legislator. KC Exec is a higher office than mayor, and is considerably more powerful than the commissions or other executives in many counties, and is indisputably the most important county in Washington. POLOUTCOMES has nothing else to say that it applicable to a county executive, leaving us back with the text of #2 and our own interpretations of it.

The guideline gives us latitude to judge what is major. The political role played by the King County executive (which is not necessarily the same, or even a thing that exists at all, in any other Washington county) makes that office and the person who holds it "major", as I see it. To cite one example, there are innumerable transit issues that affect the entire region, and with KC being the largest of the players in that, the Executive plays an outsized role in state-level legislation related to regional transit, which affects not only the region far beyond KC, but the entire state. Federal transit decisions, both legislative and administrative, are disproportionately influenced by the largest county in Washington, and the KC Executive is frequently the person speaks for the county, and the region as a whole, on those decisions. I could say the same on drug abuse policy, or immigration policy, and many other issues. To change my mind, I would have to see quite a bit of evidence that the KC Executive doesn't have major political influence.

But I can understand if you disagree. You're allowed to and I wouldn't feel like I had to badger you about it.

Note that "significant" from POL #2 is not necessarily as much coverage as WP:GNG requires. If WP:POLITICIAN did require at least as much coverage as GNG, then what would be the point of even having subject-specific guidelines? WP:N says explicitly it doesn't need to be as much coverage as GNG; a subject is notable if it meet either GNG or a subject-specific guideline such as WP:POLITICIAN.

But in this case, my opinion is that even if Revelle didn't meet WP:POLITICIAN #2, the quantity of coverage based on the HistoryLink article + all the other coverage passes GNG, and even if that were not so, the quantity and quality of coverage of Revelle as a mental health activist would also meet the GNG criteria. IMHO. YMMV.

It is a perfectly legitimate opinion that the KC Exec is doesn't qualify as "major" and/or that the coverage is not "significant". I can respect that. And of course it's legitimate to disagree with my opinion about meeting the GNG rule. Things that might change my mind would be evidence that the HistoryLink article was not independent of Randy Revelle. Even if it is not independent of King County (which it is because "This essay made possible by King County" doesn't mean KC controls HistoryLink) the essay was written in 2012, more than 25 years after Revelle last served as KC Executive. The idea that the County is promoting either itself or a former Executive from 25 years ago is implausible. I'd need to see evidence that the County or its officers, circa 2012, could reasonably expect to benefit for doing promotional work for Revelle. A state (not county) law from 1986 requires King County to devote a portion of lodging tax revenue to cultural programs, which KC administers those funds through a public benefit authority. There is lots of objective, independent, and reliable scholarship that is published with public funds such as these. Many other sponsors participated in funding both the Revelle bio and HistoryLink in general. It's legitimate to hold the opposite opinion, and I would come around to agree with that view if I were shown evidence that there is a conflict of interest at HistoryLink.

Very often, an editor's position in an AfD discussion is a matter of individual judgement. There might not always be an overwhelming quantity of evidence and so reasonable editors could disagree in good faith. Perhaps you were having trouble seeing that this could be one such case, but I hope this helps explain why.

Or, it could be that I am grievously mistaken. It could be my judgement is badly off the mark. Regretfully, I have made errors in judgment in the past, and since I am just as fallible now as I was then, I could be making another one. I expect that in the future, I will remain fallible and will inevitably make some errors. I hope I don't make too many, and that I at least learn from the ones I have made and make new mistakes, not the same ones over again. I do not know whether or not you believe that the same capacity for error applies to your judgement. It's not my place to decide that for you. (And I am done now. Please reserve your right to post more if you wish, but I have no intention of saying any more on this.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that every single local political figure who exists at all would always pass NPOL #2 if all you had to do to satisfy "major" or "significant" was declare the title to be major and show a bit of local media coverage. Every mayor of anywhere, every town or city councillor everywhere, every member of every county council, every school board trustee, every non-winning candidate. For that very reason, the rule is that if a political role is not accepted as an automatic NPOL pass, then to make a holder of that role notable enough for a Wikipedia article you do have to show significant evidence that they're considerably more notable than everybody else at the same level of office — that is, a lot more and/or wider coverage than everybody else at the same level of office could also show. Majorness, for the purposes of passing NPOL, is not attached to the title a person holds: it's attached to the volume and range and depth of media coverage that they receive for their work in that role. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree, but the intent of the SNG is a recognition that to a certain degree, not all positions should be treated with the same brush. A strong (independently elected) mayor of a major city should be evaluated differently than a city councilmember of a small jurisdiction and differently than a councilmember of a major city (which Seattle probably is one). To me, the local councilmember or small city mayor (or for that matter a candidate for elected office), should receive significant coverage in a national or international coverage, while a big city mayor should only need strong in-depth coverage about themselves (in addition to routine coverage) in regional papers. In addition we should not read into WP:POLOUTCOMES a bright line between county officials and municipal officials, that somehow, it is more difficult for a county legislator (or executive) to meet WP:NPOL than a similarly situated municipal official (at least in the US). --Enos733 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet NPOL criteria 1. References are insufficient to meet criteria 2.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in the last few years , consensus has been that being a member of a city council of a major internationally known city implied presumptive notability (FWIW, I did not support this extension, but my view was not the majority, and I respect consensus and consistency). The quibbling about the reliability of the sources in the discussion is an good example of how our rules for what counts aas RS for notability under the GNGcan be argued in any desired direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bandy Kiki[edit]

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

Not a notable blogger. The claim of "first Cameroonian to come out as lesbian" is both unsourced and unlikely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems pretty notable from what I can turn up - however, needs a serious cleanup for referencing and general BLP issues, as it seems she is a bit of a controversial figure. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as it demonstrates notability, but the controversial claim that she is the first out lesbian from Cameroon is... unsourced at the very least. --Theredproject (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The aspect of been the first Cameroonian lesbian has been cleanup~~Abanda bride~~

Keep She has been profiled by BBC for her work and activism, and has received enough significant coverage in secondary, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list"). Lonehexagon (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep votes are poor. What sources are we relying on?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weak delete ~~WP:BEFORE sources return no RS results with exact text match for full subject name. I don't know how RS appear in the article, maybe I'm copy pasting wrong, but I didn't find anything.~~ Reliable Sources Search Engine returns zero hits. I'm not sure that the newly listed sources are reliable and independent. wumbolo ^^^ 13:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Theredproject and others. While it seems the article needs better referencing, the subject seems to merit a Wiki article. ExRat (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hate to relist a third time but the first relist had a pointed comment that was not addressed. What are the reliable sources that are the basis of the keep votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered by BBC World Service, and extensively in Cameroonian media. The BBC coverage seems to lift her to more than regional interest. Mattyjohn (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RS include: BBC, Cameroon Daily Journal, Cameroon News Agency, Cameroon Journal, The Rustin Times, and Artefact Magazine (published by BA Journalism students at the London College of Communication, which I think it an indication that the article was properly researched and edited)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swargakunnile Kuriyakose[edit]

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

Low budget, non-notable film with no coverage and no sources. Fails GNG and NFILM CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note; Swargakkunnile Kuriyakose (slightly different spelling) was created just before the page nominated here. The topic is the same; thus, to all intents and purposes, that page is the original, and this one should be redirected there. Since this cannot occur during the AfD, I'm going to let both pages stand for the moment; this AfD can decide the fate of the topic, and pages deleted/redirected as needed. Vanamonde (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find evidence that this topic meets GNG or NFILM at this time. Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I even tagged it for CSD initially. But anyways. Dial911 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had tagged for CSD and PROD for failing to meet WP:NMOVIE, I believe the article creator Jinuthomson has been removing the XfD/AfD notices. — IVORK _Discuss 01:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Abu Issa[edit]

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

Promotional piece, declined A7/G11. The author has left a trail from Mozoon, where the author, Ablbaset, admitted a PAID relationship, and which was the loyalty programme for Blue Salon (created by Rhea.Shetty), which is a subsidiary of Abuissa Holding (created by Ablbaset), owned/founded by Ashraf Abu Issa. This article's opening edit summary reads "Creating a new page for Ashraf Abu Issa in order to build better SEO". This is a blatant PAID advert. Cabayi (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping contributors to article, CactusWriter, SamHolt6, Katio33, Samee, Chrissymad, & Mark the train. Cabayi (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though my only contribution was to tag G11, I still stand by it. This is clearly a TOU violation as UPE and likely could be G5'd, I'm sure.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likewise my only contribution was a A7/G11 tag. That being said, the article subject lacks any real claim to significance. Yes he is a CEO, but nothing I have seen indicated how he is individually notable as a CEO. His co-founding of a non-notable charity and his inclusion on an obscure regional list/award (Note he won a regional version of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award, not the much more significant global award) in my mind does not establish notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Im agree with @Cabayi.Katio33 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

also I checked Arabic wikipedia. due to he is Arab, if he is famous and notable person, so why he hasnt Arabic one? the biography of all of famous and notable Arab people, has published on Arabic Wikipeia before enwiki.Katio33 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because I was pinged. I made no significant contributions but I did decline the CSD and suggested AFD for the following reasons: The G11 tag had already been declined and addressed once by an experienced editor in good standing. This suggests a disagreement about the article being exclusively promotional -- therefore, the G11 should not have been reapplied but rather the article sent to AFD for discussion. There was some assertion of significance (not notability) as the head of a large retail company who had won a couple of national Qatar awards like Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award -- therefore, the article was suggested to be sent to AFD to discuss the issues (i.e. WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and WP:BIO). OTOH, a G5 tag clearly does not apply here without any block, ban or SPI case. And the current issues of SEO and Paid Editing are not covered by CSD, but rather best discussed in a consensus building setting. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address the problems (and despite that a ((UDP)) tag was placed on the article for clean up) and like CactusWriter I don't think these are now valid reasons for AfDing. I mentioned COI on article's talk page and also left some guidelines (including about SEO) on the author's talk page. I also don't think it's a valid criteria to test notability by checking their entry on Arabic Wikipedia. I would lean towards keep for the subject meets GNG. samee converse 10:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burial places of founders of world religions[edit]

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

This page is here since 2006. There are lot of problems with the article. There is a lack of references in the article. The article subject is unclear and confusing. First, what is World religion and what should be covered? Subsects and branches are unclear. Should they covered or not? The article lists Christian Science separately! Are Ahmadiyya Muslim? Article lists them separately. While Hinduism only lists Krishna. Is Krishna founder of Hinduism? The founders are all these religions or religious groups are not clear either. Some of them are mythical while some of them are historical and some can not be clearly identified such as in case of Hinduism. The article assumes that all such founders are buried and thus they must have "Burial place". It is not true. Several religious traditions do not bury dead. For example Buddhism. The final resting places are also controversial in many cases and historians do not agree about them. The subject itself is not narrow enough and clear. The information in the article is very poor with little hope of improvement. The article has been here since 2006 with not much improvement either. There are lot of issues and questions posted on its talkpage over the years. Nizil (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. The article's state is not that bad - it seems mostly correct. citations should be improved. Some NPOVing needed (particularly in terms of treating tradition as fact and for some perhaps alternative theories). What is a major or world religion is a question (in terms of cutoff) - e.g. Christian Science or Scientology would be on the edge of the branch/cult cutoff (though I could see them included). The topic would meet WP:SAL.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Icewhiz:, can you clarify what is scope of article when the all three words in title are questionable "Burial place", "founder", and "world religion"? Do you think all religions have unique founders with clear burial places? Think about Hinduism. What will you include about it in this article where two words in the title do not apply to it? See Tomb of Jesus as the place of his tomb is disputed. --Nizil (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll parse your statement to three:
    1. "Burial place" - I think this is straightforward - it is where a "founder" remain's are purported to be located at. There might be disagreement or different beliefs (particularly so for older relgions) - in which case different alternatives should be listed. When the burial location is a "belief" as opposed to a fact - we should state so. Jesus's place of burial (as well as Jewish figures) is a belief (in fact - there is doubt on the historicity of the figures). The burial place of Bahá'u'lláh is (I think!) a historical fact.
    2. "Founder" - While considering gods or deities as founders for Hinduism (Krishna) and similar pantheons is somewhat suspect (though perhaps possible) - many if not most world religions have clear human founders or alleged founders. We have List of founders of religious traditions - so it seems we can define founder elsewhere.
    3. "World religion" - I think one could agree on a fairly clear criteria. Yes, there are questions over whether say Scientology is a religion (some places recognize it as such, some do not, many do not have an opinion) - however in most cases it is fairly clear what is and what is not a religion. One could argue against "world religion" - or perhaps not. We do have a List of religions and spiritual traditions - so t seems it is possible to compile a list of religions.
  - In short - I do not see the problem here. It is fairly obvious that burial locations (or remains held outside of a tomb - e.g. Gautama Buddha) are notable. There might be a case to merge to List of founders of religious traditions - however due to some traditions of burial being uncertain or possibly needing to account for several such traditions it might get convoluted there - and that other list tries to list one founder, while for burial it make sense to list more than one founding figure if there is such a situation (e.g. I would think it would make sense to list both Shrine of the Báb and Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh for Bahá'í Faith). In cases where there isn't a founder or a burial place (e.g. ascended to heaven, unknown, or whatever) - we could omit the religion or state said status.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your participation.

Re: 1. "Burial place" - All religions do not bury dead. So how will you list remains held outside of a tomb - e.g. Gautama Buddha? And these remains can not surely belonged to the historical Buddha. They are listed as Relics associated with Buddha, not burial place. So burial place is incorrect for Buddha. Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism do not bury people either (mostly). So how can you list them under title of "Burial place"? In article, for Krishna (who is just a major deity, historicity not validated), the place of his death (which has questionable historicity) is listed, not "Buarial place", and there is no "historical" truth about it. The same applies to other Dharmic religions too. Look Change the name of article where it is questioned by someone in past. See The Buddha too. The burial is a tradition in Abrahamic religions which does not apply everywhere. See NPOV where someone had pointed about Moses whose grave is not exact place. The [Tomb of Jesus]] is not historically accepted place.

Re: 2. "Founder" - List of founders of religious traditions is not about "world religion founders". It list any and all traditions with incorrectly listing people as "founders". Take an example of Mahavira of Jainism. See Jainism#Origins. The origin is obscure and the religion is considered as "eternal". The mythology about it does not let decide founder specifically. So whatever you list is either incorrect or unsuitable. Look at Hinduism. It is also said as eternal and Krishna is just one major deity of thousands of other deities. He is not claimed as "founder". Can you pinpoint who is "founder" in the article of Hinduism? Will you omit Hinduism because it has not one founder or a burial place (as proposed above)?

Re: 3. "World religion" - We do not have article on World religion and is redirected to Major religious groups. Look at the article. Can you list which religions should be listed here? Look at the article Burial places of founders of world religions and say which religious tradition should/should not be in the list. Are Ahmadiyya part of Islam? If yes, it should be covered under Islam. Can you suggest a criteria for "world religion"?

Burial locations of major religious figures are notable but it is difficult to know where they are. And more we go in past, it becomes uncertain for many figures. It can be fairly listed for recent figures but it is problematic for many figures. I have pointed it above. I have questioned the scope of the subject. I have questioned the title. I have not questioned the notability of places associated with these notable figures. Thank you again for engaging in the discussion. Regards--Nizil (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your points above could be addressed with a rename to say List of purpoted relics of founders of religious traditions (a bit long). A smaller, and probably due change, is World religion to major religion or just religion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are widening the scope of the current article with "relics" and "religious traditions". Still "founder" is in question. The problem with term "founder" is told above. If you widen the scope of article further, it will be completely new article or possibly list of lists including articles like Relics associated with Buddha, Relics associated with Jesus. But still questions about Hinduism and other Dharmic religions persist.--Nizil (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Information on Hinduism and Krishna is removed from the article by Icewhiz recently.--Nizil (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Icewhiz. Propose rename to Relics associated with world religions.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham:, thank you for responding to the discussion. Your rename proposal is widening the scope of article further than Icewhiz's proposal. Your renamed article could list All the relics (btw world religion is bit unclear word, see discussion about it above) associated with the particular religion, not limited to one figure or some figures. This will too result in completely new article, very different from the current one.--Nizil (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest limiting to founders relics/tombs/burial. Relics without founders is very wide indeed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom wants cleanup, article is useful and encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Adi Devir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some coverage (more in English and in Hebrew) - but seems to be same story about his comics portraying himself and his wife - so that's sort of 1Eish, and doesn't seem to reach SIGCOV. Don't see how one semi-notable work would pass CREATIVE. The work itself (the comics) might.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Icewhiz the comic might pass, but he is maybe TOOSOON. His CV[35] has maybe 20 links to stories, but few of them are WP:RS that could establish notability. The LA Times is part of their High School writers program [36]. Der Zeit is an online partnership, and short profile [37]. The rest are mostly bloggish sources.Theredproject (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Moot because the article was also proposed for Speedy Deletion (CSD G7) at the same time as this AfD, and the Admin User:Anthony Bradbury acted on the the G7 request. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esmeralda Galea Camilleri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She's attempting to build a career with some YouTube submissions and asking bloggers to do interviews with her, but she has not been noticed by reliable sources. Good luck to her. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Golol[edit]

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

This isn't a Somali town, and it isn't called Golol. Its name, according to geonames, is "Ximan Golol", and it's a waterhole. Are waterholes notable? Anyway, the aerial confirms that there's no town there or indeed anything recognizable. Mangoe (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete If it doesn't exist, then it's a hoax and can be speedyied. Also, who keeps creating these random Somali articles about towns that don't exist? I swear I've seen 5 similar articles over the past couple of days. 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 14:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some years back, a couple of people apparently just dumped entries from a geonames mirror without paying much attention to what they were doing. Unfortunately it's difficult to determine ahead of time which ones came in this way and which ones are legit (and which are accidentally legit), so I'm going over each one separately. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and everything else. Not There location L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Dai[edit]

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

Non-notable person connected with some notable subjects (Crypto++, Bitcoin & c.). Basically, this guy seems to be a footnote in guessing the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, and that's as far as his personal notability goes. Sources cover the various projects and ancillary topics but not himself. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - At this time, it appears that every single editor except Xinbenlv has been canvassed to this AfD (or miraculously decided to create an account and come straight here, or edit again for the first time in 2 years here...). Glad you kids are having fun at Reddit or wherever, but please don't try the pile-on tactics on Wikipedia, mmkay? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, the subject of article is absolutely not a footnote only to guess the satoshi's identity.

It's incorrect to say "connected to", he actually is the creator of the Crypto++ which is an important crypto library, as shown on Crypto++ page.
Adding to the proof of his notability and importance is, one of the world's most important cryptocurrency, Ethereum, names its smallest unit of currency to be after Mr. Wei Dai. In United States one-dollar bill, the equivalent is George Washington.

the deletion-nomination seems

ignoring the existing references already in the article citing his direct and indirect contributions to the development of cryptography
ignoring the article Wei Dai's content itself, which carries his contribution in other cryptography areas.
and, has not conducted "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" as required by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion before nomination

This subject meets notability test by the fact there are multiple reliable news resources reporting his contributions, plus his academic work in patent and scholar paper. In conclusion, I disagree with this notability challenge and deletion. - Xinbenlv (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wei's technical report "b-money" is the first reference of the Bitcoin white paper ^[4]. The smallest value unit in Ethereum is "Wei", which is named after Wei Dai. Therefore, I think this subject definitely meets notability test. Linyufly (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Linyufly (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Jbh ^Talk 16:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Basically, this guy seems to be a footnote in guessing the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, and that's as far as his personal notability goes" - this just shows how ignorant and disrespect whoever wrote that. Anyone who is serious about cryptocurrency and has done his own due diligence probably should know that Wei Dai is one of the earliest pioneers in this field, and Satoshi suggested this description of Bitcoin: “Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai’s b-money proposal on Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo’s Bitgold proposal.” I believe this subject definitely meets notability test. - Zhuzeng Lu (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Zhuzeng Lu (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Jbh ^Talk 16:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (PDF). Bitcoin White Paper. Retrieved 23 March 2018.

I'll readily own to being ignorant about the topic, and having no respect whatsoever for your idols. It's for you to show their notability to people like me by referencing sources that clearly demonstrate that assessment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is saying the subject is whose idol or not. Basically, a deletion nomination like this regarding WP:N without due diligence or familiarity to the subject is against the policy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and shall be flagged a vandalism. Such behavior is toxic to the editorial culture. The right way is to add ((notability|date=March 2018)) if you are not familiar to the subject and lack of skills or expertise in the domain to do sufficient due diligence and you are constructively look for other people with expertise to help. - Xinbenlv (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...in which case the article tends to sit there with the tag for three years and nothing happens. I suggest it's preferable to have things clarified in a discussion that then can later be linked to. Vide, if this ends in a clear keep, then the issue is sorted decisively. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I understand you were recently granted "new page reviewer", first of all, congratulations! And I appreciate your motivation to clean up things.

What I disagree with is the approach you took, which is without expertise and due diligence, and ignoring existing content and reference on the page, flag a page for deletion. The reason is that this approach forces people to respond. It sometimes means hijacking other editors' time to debate with you, with which they may contribute on other pages or content.

In fact, I think the ultimate rationale behind your behavior (as I noticed in your contributions that you are constantly flagging pages for deletion) is that you disagree with the community's policy about ((notability|date=March 2018)) tag because you doubt its efficiency - and in fact I couldn't help agreeing with this assessment. If this is true, I'd suggest

- (1) you raise your concern about notability tag policy in the appropriate place, rather than constantly combatting new pages out of your expertise domains. And

- (2) prioritize your flag-for-delete contributions on the pages that already have a notability tag for a long time, because you are sure someone else who also cares about the page, and have visted the page prior to your visit have similar doubt of its notability. You won't need to worry that you don't have expertise, because as admins I believe you were using tools to visit a filtered list of pages such as new page, but that usually mean the page visit was not guarantee to be in your expertise domain. But other random viewer's visit has a higher chance to be related to that viewer' domain expertise. I believe that will bring you closer to your goal. Again, I appreciate your contribution of cleaning things.

Xinbenlv (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say that it seems well understood in the NPP crowd that notability tagging in most cases is just equivalent to passing the buck to an empty place at the table - the related maintenance queues are vast and growing, and chances are that nothing will be done about any specific article any time soon. If a check of provided sources raises reasonable doubt about notability (which I believe to be the case here), I prefer to call for a discussion and get decisive input. I don't buy any accusations about "forcing people to respond" - we are all volunteers that do as much as we want to; the final metric is article quality, not how much or how little work any editor was able to get away with; and if there is need for more expansive comments in an AfD, then the likelihood is that there was need for work on the article. - But let's not turn this into too much of a meta-discussion on notability tags vs AfD nominations, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I am simply saying this AofD was not filed in compliance with the AofD policy, and it's harmful. Xinbenlv (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a point of comparison, Hal Finney and Nick Szabo have pages. Mr. Dai doesn't really put himself out there, but he deserves recognition WuTheFWasThat 05:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — WuTheFWasThat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well I'm sorry to "badger" this, but that is as worthless an argument as you could come up with. We don't deal in deserve, we deal in covered. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - every subject has to meet notability requirements on their own; and if "not putting himself out there" translates to "doesn't get substantial coverage", then he fails in that regard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Removing this page would put a big gap in studying the origins of cryptocurrencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaStand (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — BananaStand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC#1, The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, with that discipline being crypto-currencies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citations listed by Google Scholar look good, but in the field of computer science thousands of citations are pretty routine, so Wei Dai's 770 citations and h-index of 8 are not all that impressive. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

b-money was cited by Bitcoin whitepaper and Ethereum whitepaper. Xinbenlv (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIGS (company)[edit]

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

Higly promotional. Sources are mix of Churnalism and routine press coverage. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The Miami Herald and LA Times articles are bylined and entirely about this company. Those are just two examples of the coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:NCORP notability is now in place. I would like to update the Afd to and Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added add scope_creep (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've improved the wording of the "Overview" paragraph. Was wondering if the owners could be notable rather than the company. Deb (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are mostly WP:SPIP; clearly WP:TOOSOON for a company that is doing a lot of self-promotion, with no significant achievements just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability; probable paid editor. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The LA Times article is based on information provided to the company. The first Miami Herald article appears as if the bulk of the article were provided by the company's PR department. I'm more convinced about the independence of the second Herald article, but a single independent, reliable source with in-depth coverage is not enough to pass WP:GNG or NCORP. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Milutinović[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Simione001 (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not far off from GNG, but fails it in my opinion, clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, the player is currently playing in a semi-pro league which is one below the fully pro leagues. Govvy (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. 11:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenij Sviatchenko[edit]

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

No references, no indication of notability that I can see, but perhaps that is because I don't read Ukrainian. Apparently created by an editor connected to Sergei Sviatchenko. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems that this is part of long-term pattern of promotional editing surrounding (Sergei) Sviatchenko, who is probably notable (though I'm having the greatest difficult finding enough sources to confirm that). Apart from this, which was "Created on request of Sergei Sviatchenko", other affected pages are Less collage, now also at AfD) and – to a lesser extent – that on his son. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - probably notable (PROF / architect), if the CV information is correct. Sourcing, however, would probably be mainly in Russian (as would much of citations of his work). There is a case for TNT at current state, and it fails WP:V without any reference.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have no idea whether he was or was not important. The number of articles may be impressive, if they are academic ones (not merely in magazines). However the number of red-links points to deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as it is completely unsourced, and I couldn't find any WP:RS to back it up. There might be sources in Russian, but then again, I note that the only other article is on da.wiki Theredproject (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G7, creator blanked the page. Fram (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is Statistical Consulting’ aspects[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Reality[edit]

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

Promotional in tone, eg "The short film received accolades in film festivals in Tampa bay area. Film received great reviews but left viewers and critics wanting more" and I'm not sure "big in Tampa Bay" is notable enough for this web series Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom it's promotional. I don't think being "big" in a local city is good enough to presume notability, and there is no evidence it meets WP:GNG. Also I am pretty sure that we won't actually delete reality by deleting this, although if we are only deleting the deleted reality, would that undelete the deleted reality which would need then to be deleted... or something Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a web series which imdb says cost $10,000, too small and local to be notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Crabiel[edit]

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

County politician and unsuccessful congressional candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable politician under WP:NPOL and not WP:GNG. Appreciate nom's general cleanup of New Jersey political cruft but suggest to avoid other NJ articles for now until controversies die down - there may be county freeholders in other states to clean up in the interim? SportingFlyer talk 06:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being a county freeholder nor being an unsuccessful candidate in a congressional election is an automatic notability freebie per WP:NPOL, but the article isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — apart from a single obituary in the local newspaper, which isn't enough to carry a GNG pass all by itself, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources rather than notability-assisting media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've expanded the article based on 8 newspaper articles about Crabiel from newspapers.com.[38] There are over 10,000 newspaper articles referencing him (starting with some from his boyhood), there are a couple more small things I plan to add, but those 8 are the coverage that is most in-depth about Crabiel I could find. Most of the 10,000+ are likely to be routine references, of course. The summary for his life as being encyclopedic is: he operated 6 funeral homes, served in county and city politics from 1960 until his death in 2008, was active on numerous boards and community service organizations, leading to the naming of a building at Middlesex County College for him, and donations through a scholarship foundation in his name to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital led to a dedication of a fireplace in the hospital to him. The article is cited, NPOV, NOR, and V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but I still don't see notability here. Over half of the sources are from one local newspaper, the Central New Jersey Home News. The only articles that cover him directly currently in the article that aren't his obituaries: [39] which isn't exactly a feature article on him. He's mentioned here [40] as "a freeholder." Simply not notable apart from the fact he was a hyper-local politician for many years, and that doesn't pass WP:GNG SportingFlyer talk 04:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Sorry I didn't notice this message earlier (I usually do for AfDs without a ping needed, but I'm pinging you because of my delayed response). No need to apologize, out of respect I'm going to give a somewhat detailed answer if that is ok. I take the view at discussions about deceased figures that local coverage is not necessarily a problem. GNG/NBIO do use dictionary-based definitions such as "worthy of note" as a descriptor for what is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but do not discriminate against a subject being worthy of note only in a single state or village. WP:RS does have some discussion which casts a negative light on using local sources as reliable sources, such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but again, it does not discriminate expressly against local sources, assuming a "reputation for checking the facts" (WP:QUESTIONABLE - sorry for overlinking, I just want to be clear). V is a bit restrictive as well, listing reliable sources to include "mainstream newspapers". NPOV notes a need for a range of sources when a "bias in sources" is possible. In my opinion, OR isn't an issue here, but others can judge whether better if my wordings are NOR/NPOV/NSYNTH. So while an article like this might require a bit more work to write and a bit more effort to insure quality, I don't see a problem in our core content policies for an article like this, nor in our guidelines. There are arguments like the one you make in POLOUTCOMES, but there are many AfDs for articles like this which do not get deleted and many which do, so I don't see that non-vetted supplement as being terribly useful once an article is expanded during the process of an AfD. On the other hand, there are reasons to think the broader community wants articles like this and finds them encyclopedic. For instance, WP:LOCALINT failed in part because it was too restrictive. Also, our longstanding policy, WP:NOTPAPER, encourages users to write articles on a broad range of topics, so long as it is encyclopedic. In my opinion, public officials who are no longer living (so BLP/PROMO concerns no longer apply) who received coverage over an extended period of time or in a range of sources in a region and about whom sources exist so that a START quality article is likely are suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In my opinion, there is no consensus against this and some consensus in its favor. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My searches supports assertions by Smmurphy that substantive sourcing exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG. --RAN (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I've argued elsewhere that we should expand our coverage under WP:POLITICIAN to major US party nominees for national level office, thoughnot to those who did not succeed in the primary. US Congress is a national level office, so he would qualify. The degree to which we use local sources for this sort of an article has never been settled. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Weber[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 155 games at AHL level, fails WP:NHOCKEY. SportingFlyer talk 06:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Cann[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY, less than 90 games at AHL level, no apparent awards. SportingFlyer talk 06:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Godfrey[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Farhan Azhar al-Qadri[edit]

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

clearly fails GNG.. article contain OR and cites many unreliable sources. Saqib (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seemingly well written and with lots of references - that are mostly his personal WIX site. BEFORE doesn't show much. 24 year old scholars are rarely notable, and this one does not seem to be the exception.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. As Icewhiz said, the bulk of the citations are to self-published sources. Of the remaining sources, only one seems to even mention the subject of the article, and it (the youth parliament link) isn't enough to establish notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max Campbell (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:NHOCKEY since he didn't meet notability requirements for minor leagues and does not otherwise satisfy the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY requirements. PK T(alk) 11:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Heroes in Love[edit]

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

Non notable comic series that fails WP:GNG and doesn't appear in reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for being an early, uncommon example of homo/bisexual superhero characters from a major publisher, and an example of the hybrid superhero/romance genre. Sources include: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you are just rattling out sources per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, maybe consider whether they are either reliable or significant. I can tell you for a fact that a large number of those are either a primary source (interview), an unreliably sourced blog, or an insignificant mention like a one sentence name drop. I am still not convinced about the notability as there is no indication you are familiar with notability guidelines._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have in fact considered the nature of the sources. Several of them are mainstream sites covering the comics industry or pop culture (e.g. CBR, Comics Alliance, Logo, Gizmodo). Notability guidelines (which I am in fact familiar with) don't require that the subject be the primary topic of sources, only that the coverage be significant enough to establish the facts: It's the sole topic of the very long article on MajorSpoilers.com, and in each of the articles covering it as part of a set of related items (CBR, Logo, InsidePulse, The Star) it gets a section header and 150–300 words, which is more than "a one sentence name drop". While a few of the sources I linked to are blogs, it's worth noting that they are bringing up a comic published many years earlier (not just "look what I bought this week"), which speaks to some lasting significance.(WP:SUSTAINED) Which brings up the content of what several of the sources are saying, speaking of the historical notability of the comic for its depiction of gay/bi characters in the 90s, and its niche in the romance genre. The article does a poor job of documenting this; it looks like it's about a forgettable and forgotten series from 20 years ago. But it is not forgotten and it is notable, and the article could be easily improved to reflect that.(WP:NEXIST) If the only sources available were passing mentions and blogs, you would be correct in assessing it as inadequately sourced to keep, but in fact the sources are more reliable and substantial than that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - MajorSpoilers.com is not a reliable source, as it says nothing about what type of editorial staff is on the site (I am guessing there is none). The Gizmodo reference is one sentence. CBR is just a listicle, so it's not significant coverage. The Star has a couple paragraphs, again not significant. Everything else is an unreliable blog post. I'd say the mention in The Star is the closest it comes to notability but that alone cannot carry the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
      - I feel you are judging the sources prejudicially (and ignoring the issue of its demonstrated cultural notability) to justify a hasty and careless nomination for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that most of the sources you listed are unusable blogs. Although CBR has won some Eisners in its day, I've found it to be almost useless since it was sold. io9 and Inside Pulse are usable, but I only use them to add color to reception sections, not to satisfy GNG. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of DC Comics publications. Anything notable about it will fit in the notes column easily. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding some coverage as "Young+Heroes+in+Love"&dq="Young+Heroes+in+Love"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizyvK8pf3ZAhUKLKwKHaPZAt44FBDoAQg2MAM here fore example. Yes, it's a compendium, but the series is also noted elsewhere and referred to as acclaimed in another source. Not hugely notable but significant in its niche. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While there's some basic agreement on a redirect or merge, there's really nothing substantial to go by to close this AfD after three relists. Therefore I'm closing this as no consensus but with a recommendation to discuss on the talk page to come up with both an appropriate action -- Redirect vs Merge and the right target for it. —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pahri language[edit]

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

From Narky Blert Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pahari language This is a mess. Pahri language should not be a DAB page – it contains one redirect, and one WP:SEEALSO. It fails WP:TWODABS by some margin, and as such is ripe for deletion.

Not clear if there is a best target for a redirect. PRehse (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pahari language (subject to the result of its deletion discussion, linked by OP). It looks like a plausible alternative spelling or transliteration. Narky Blert (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pahari language (or wherever that gets merged/moved to). It is indeed a mess. Batternut (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only book result I have found for "Pahri language" relates to Poonch and Rajouri districts, whose articles link to Pahari languages, Pahari language (Kashmir) and Dogri (a Western Pahari language) - who knows which Pahari is intended in such cases, hence wider disambiguation required.^[1]

References

^ Ganguly, Rajat (2013). Autonomy and Ethnic Conflict in South and South-East Asia. Routledge. p. 8. ISBN 1136311890.

Don't redirect to Pahari language. First of all, "Pahri" is reliably attested only as the name of a dialect of the Newar language. If redirecting to a single article is to be considered, then this is the only legitimate target. However, now a source has been unearthed (thanks, Batternunt, for finding that!), where "Pahri" refers to Pahari language (Kashmir) (it's obvious from the context that this is the intended meaning). I'm not quite sure what to make of it: it only mentions the languages very briefly before moving on to a completely different topic, and in another place the paper uses a wacky spelling of "Bolti" for Balti language. Are these misspellings, or variants deliberately changed to match the local pronunciation? I don't know. Regardless of how "proper" this use is, I would err on the side of reader convenience and include an entry for this language in the body of the current dab page, not the least because "Pahri" makes sense as a romanisation of that language's native name. I don't think it makes sense as a romanisation of the native names of the other languages listed at the related page Pahari language, but a link to it should be included as the two names are probably easy to confuse. So we now have two more or less legitimate entries, and a third link in the "See also", which is enough to recommend keeping. – Uanfala (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: Could you share that attestation with us? Batternut (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, the linked article Newar language has a dedicated section about it. – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Sindhupalchowk Pahri", with its citation-free 23 words, which is ambiguous over the spelling, Pahri or Pahari? Batternut (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.... and there's a section in Grierson' Linguistic Survey of India (vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 227ff). And also, virtually all linguistics papers that come up on a proquest search for "Pahri" are about it. – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grierson does not use the term "Pahri language". If any proquest hits are citable you could add them to the Newar language article. Batternut (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But he does use "Pahri" as the name of a language (and the fact that he sees it as a dialect of Newar is irrelevant). – Uanfala (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR; this idea doesn't help readers, who may be unsure of the spelling and who need one convenient target. Narky Blert (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another surprising view, in passing: "Language: Nepali ... Status: Nepali is the official language of Sikkim and District of Darjeeling. It is one of the Indian languages of the Indo-Aryan family and belonging to the eastern Pahri group of the Pahri languages," found at Centre For Applied Linguistics & Translation Studies. This instance just shows the wider use of Pahri as an alternate name for Pahari. Batternut (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly a typo. – Uanfala (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging into the main dab page Pahri? – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple deletion would be preferable - since the single documented mention of "Pahri language" just looks like a typo of Pahari. Batternut (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already cast a broad !vote above, but if a single concrete outcome were to be chosen, I would go for redirecting to the main dab page Pahri . – Uanfala (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Educational Research Association[edit]

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

Not notable. The "European Educational Research Association" is a German non-profit organization, but not affiliated with any government organisation that I can see, despite their claimed mission statement.

~~As a corporation it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but also fails WP:GNG since I can't find viable secondary sourcing.~~

Please note that being one of many companies/organisations to attend to the European Conference on Educational Research or take a role in the European Educational Research Journal is not in itself of any great relevance. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first 3 results in Google German books are secondary sources that talk a lot about the European Educational Research Association (EERA). 2 of the top 10 Google English books also talk extensively about the EERA and its history and what it has done.

English books

- Europeanizing Education: governing a new policy space by Martin Lawn, Sotiria Grek: the need for an educational organization, who founded EERA, where they met, reasons for forming, how the organization grew
- Evidence and Public Good in Educational Policy, Research and Practice by Mustafa Yunus Eryaman, Barbara Schneider: EERA lobbyed the EU to increase educational research budget
- The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Education by Gary McCulloch, David Crook: shorter handbook, but concise summarization of what the EERA does

German books:

- Bei Vielfalt Chancengleichheit by Marianne Krüger-Potratz, ‎Ursula Neumann, ‎Hans H. Reich: history of EERA's founding, how it chose its main areas of research focus
- Kleine Geschichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft by Peter Horn, Hans-Georg Herrlitz, Christa Berg: more information than you could possibly ever want about the history and founding of the EERA
- Handbuch Bildungsforschung by Rudolf Tippelt, Bernhard Schmidt: shorter handbook, concisely summarizes the main points of the above books

As a note, I see that the current EERA page doesn't have citations. These previous books can cover most of them.

Germanhexagon (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [52][53][54]. I am open to proposals for redirect/merge, but so far none has been proposed. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of refs on google and in this afd. Szzuk (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Playscripts, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP because current sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH as routine business announcements. I was unable to find any additional sources. shoy (reactions) 15:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found some other references in a BEFORE, however, they are fleeting and routine coverage that don't help establish WP:CORPDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the others, I find passing references and press releases, but no "significant coverage" to the subject itself. Ravenswing 18:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A couple of modestly substantial sources about the company: the second half of a 2005 theater column from Variety [55]; a 2006 article in American Theatre Magazine [56]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. A promotional directory listing accompanied by a link farm. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll add that notability isn't inherited and there are no indications of notability of this company. The references fail the criteria for establishing notability and are either mentions-in-passing or rely on quotations from company owners. Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While we like to and should be encourage new editors, consensus here is that this artist does not meet out notability standards. I hope that User:Sarah76 sticks around and continues to contribute to Wikipedia. J04n(talk page) 11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Applause for putting off contributers. Keep it in house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.74.97 (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Linesman (musician)[edit]

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

NN musician. I can't find sources to support half of the claims nor can I find actual in-depth coverage. All other instances of "Russian Linesman" appear to be related to an art gallery or a football player. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed all sources such as reputable ones like BBC. Search any online music service such as iTunes and SPotify and you will find this artist. The page contains no claims that are without source. Sarah76 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The recordings claim is rebuffed at https://www.discogs.com/artist/447757-Russian-Linesman, although it's not a RS. Three feature-length interviews at the niche web publications: http://www.dmcworld.net/uncategorized/russian-linesman/ https://change-underground.com/russian-linesman-electronica/ http://newsflash.bigshotmag.com/features/54023/ . This seems to satisfy WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Self releasing albums through your own vanity label does not satisfy WP:MUSIC#5. Talking about yourself does not satisfy WP:MUSIC#1 or GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a review from the British Psychological Society. This is a reliable source. Sarah76 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m inclined to say delete. Those sources cited by Walter Görlitz (talk) are first person interviews with the subject, which surprises me why a veteran AfD editor would interpret them as qualifying criteria. The other sources are promotional . The Psychologist source is an odd duck; although possibly a reliable source among psychology professionals, this one reads like a blog post, including a link to the subject's soundcloud page. What gives me pause is the BBC reference. Can anyone enlighten me on the significance of BBC6? It appears to be a digital streaming service not unlike i-tunes or spotify and it is not the same as being on rotation on their regular commercial channels, although it has programing with presenters. This programing appears to be a mixed bag of significant and unimportant, ranging from archival recordings by notable performers to amateurs who submit their music. I’m holding off from i-voting until I can get some clarity on the significance of this subject having had his music played there. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: First-person interviews are not a problem provided that they are WP:RSes. If I'm wrong, show my at GNG where they are not considered as such. You may be confusing first-person with WP:PRIMARY. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: 6Music is not available on analogue radio, no, but it is widely available via digital means of transmission and has, I believe, higher listening figures than the classical station Radio 3 (which does have national FM coverage). I think you are underestimating the prestige the station has acquired for itself; it has become a sort of "new generation's Radio 4" as part of the establishmentisation of rock music in the UK. It has a significant new-establishment cultural status (which is precisely what puts me, probably one of 1Xtra's oldest regular listeners, off it, but that's not the point). btw the BBC's more mainstream popular music stations, Radios 1 & 2, do not carry commercials; admittedly they are more "commercial" in the broader sense, but no BBC outlet in the UK carries direct advertising. HTH. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must I say I didn't realise how well moderated Wikipedia is. This is my first article. Hope I haven't caused any problems. Sarah76 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Greetings @Sarah76: and welcome to the world of Wikipedia. We do have a policy of not biting a newcommer. With admitted unlimited space there is always room for improvement and good additions. I just saw this and am about to go to bed so haven't had a chance to dig into it. I will state that with what I have seen on the sources I "might" be inclined to also !vote delete. Either of the last two !voting delete would likely result in a delete. "If" a delete is decided you can ask the admin to userfy. You can also provide acceptable sources that some of us may not have access to which would allow a HEY. I will state that "if" sourcing concerns are not addressed there will likely be another nomination even if a "no consensus" is given. This is a BLP and the standards are higher than for other articles. I placed a BLP template on the "new" talk page. Primary sources can not be used to advance notability. I am going to step out and see how it goes but will check in and "if" kept will follow the article. I do not like starting AFD's so hopefully you can make some improvements. Again, being a biography, there needs to be some referenced content along those lines. The last sentence has no source so this is a BLP with no personal information like birthday and year, and other normally given biographical content. Lacking this it appears commercial. Another issue is an orphan article. I am tired but good luck, Otr500 (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I do not feel this article is an "orphan". There are links to this page from the following pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eelke_Kleijn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeskola_Buzz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Davis_(musician)#Remixes I also feel the BBC and BPS are very reliable sources. Not sure what I have done wrong with this article. Sarah76 (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good job and progress. The problems are not what you "have done wrong" it is that what is missing is important for what the Wikipedia community (of which you have included yourself) considers to be notable for inclusion. The BBC source (BBC Radio 6 Music) is titled Nemone's Electric Ladyland and subtitled with The Russian Linesman (an apparent clip doesn't work). Although this reference may be alright for content an issue is the notability of a person (subject) that includes WP:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The source provided is not about the subject ,and this is self evident with the title, and there is an image that I am sure is not the subject as the article is loaded with pronouns "He" and "he". This is an AFD and I am not being ugly when I state that "what have I done wrong" should be "what can I do to fix the article. Two very possible delete !votes have held off but "if there are no better sources for "notability" then I would suggest asking the article to be userfied (you can wait to see "if" it is deleted and ask that admin if you like) or you can roll the dice. I can look at other of the sources but I glanced at this one and agree that first person interviews, primary sources, and trivial mention (subtitles or other sources that do not directly cover the subject) do not advance notability. A subject that self-produces is considered primary and needs other reliable sources to back this up. If I can help I do not mind but the article is not even on the same planet with things I generally cover. This is a good thing because we need coverage of "all things possible, that can be reliably sourced.

I checked BBC Music (I actually joined to look deeper) and again we are looking at mention of this "Nemone's Electric Ladyland". I looked again and the title of this article is still "Russian Linesman (musician)" Otr500 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I gave this a second look with the re-listing, and appreciate RobinCarmody addressing my question about BB6. I’m going with delete. All manner of notable and non-notable performers have appeared on or have had their music played on the BBC, and to have an entry on the BBC’s website that reflects that is not the same as having one’s music in regular rotation. The appearance on Electric Ladyland was a 15 minute segment near the end of a 2 hour program, a regular feature where a different musician/music industry type is asked to play three favorite songs by other artists. But the bigger problem is the lack of decent sources. There are three interviews with small, niche music websites, one of which, Change Underground, is a user submitted website for musicians to promote themselves. See this: https://change-underground.com/category/about-c-u/ . The other two, while they lack similar links for verification have articles written with similar verbiage and are equally suspicious of their independence of the promotional interest of the subject . The BPS Psychologist is not a reliable source. It is user submitted per this: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/contribute. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable law firm. I think we've deleted articles about law firms larger than this before. Most of the search results I see are press releases. Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, references are all to the company website or directory listings (plus one deadlink). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO. Major regional law firm; an article could probably be sourced drawing on news coverage of firm readily found in regional papers and on articles about the firms role in notable cases. There should be no prejudice against re-creating an article in this firm sourced to on reliable, secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit Mulugeta[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 03:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing any coverage of him. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are multiple sources covering the influence of a Dawit Mulugeta in the context of the scientific field; and such relevant policy does not have to be considerably news worthy, arguably, and although there are no articles solely covering him, there is considerable independent research used by a variety of works that are notable. For example, the main article states that:

"Mulugeta's publications have been used in multiple Consensus Study Reports by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, such as The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Organizations, such as the Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology, Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute, the United States Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the Division on Earth and Life Studies, have referenced his research to shape agricultural policy."

These pieces of works have been cited in over 100 research articles according to Googles scholar page; and there is considerable mention and proof of his work in the JSTOR database. These are secondary sources (the scholarly pages) that reflect on his work, and use it to advance agricultural policy based on non-theoretical, non-profit studies, used previously by African countries (specifically Ethiopia and Kenya) and more recently the United States. Considerable mention in the scientific journal Weed Science, for which he has published in and published by the WSSA, is rated in the top 20 for research in agronomy according to Cambridge University. An example of one such paper written by Mr. Mulugeta has been cited by a policy source from the National Academy of Sciences, according to Altmetric. From this, I would say this work is "worthy of note", having had a considerable influence (you will find all of what I have stated can be found in the basis of the main articles references). There are many articles of people in Wikipedia whose biographies are not news worthy or have received major coverage, but are labeled as 'notable academics'. According to WP:ACADEMIC, there are multiple reasons for why he is notable:

Mr Mulugeta has been a research scientist and associate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
"4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."

And as stated by that same article:

"Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."

I should also mention that his work in the SAS programming language has also been used in other publications and books, for which I am currently researching to improve the quality of the article; as well as improving the language of the article in general. I will be happy to have further discussion. Thomasdw22 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is a significant contributor in both agricultureand marketing. The fact that he has not had a specific biography article does not mean that he is in any way not adequately significant. Pete unseth (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , checking in Google Scholar, his most cited articles have 117, 97, 72 citations. Scientific influence is measured by citations, so this is sufficient to show notability under WP:PROF in any field. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Less collage[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently completely, resoundingly non-notable. Four hits on Highbeam, two on JSTOR, eight on GoogleNews; all are unambiguously false positives, occurrences of the phrase "less collage" in other contexts. We do not need a redirect to Sergei Sviatchenko because this is not a term anyone is likely to search for.

This is part of long-term pattern of promotional editing surrounding Sviatchenko, who is probably notable (though I'm having the greatest difficult finding enough sources to confirm that). Other affected pages are on his father ("Created on request of Sergei Sviatchenko", now also at AfD) and – to a lesser extent – his son. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is an unattributed translation of da:Lessisme; please see also Draft:Lessisme, which is another. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with arguments above. The article subject is bizarre, and seems to be connected to the person mentioned the most: Sergei Sviatchenko. This is an unknown term/process that does not achieve notability with current refs.104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spitshine Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable label, not covered by reliable sources. Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The reference in the article, Homocore, is enough to show that this fairly marginalized topic meets the GNG. The discussion there is extensive. See this search in the book. Also this label is discussed in this dissertation from the University of Vienna and this book on Queer Feminist punk. Clearly satisfies the GNG, therefore. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talal Yassine[edit]

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

Insufficient basis for notability. The Medal of the Order of Australia is its lowest rank, given to an unlimited number of people each year, and is not by itself enough to give a presumption of notability . Other notability would be as MD of Crescent Wealth, which does not have an article and is probably not notable enough for one either. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking in depth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wiki article is not well cited at the moment, and a lot of material has been removed from it (some of which I think could be added back in with sourcing), but on a brief search I'm finding significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Samples: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64],[65], [66], [67]. SunChaser (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability is not there; promo 'cruft. Sourcing offered above is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP, which does not amount to WP:SIGCOV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elgargaro[edit]

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

Another Somali town, this one "unverified" on geonames, and the coordinates find a blank area. It shows up as a dot on a UN map, but there's no narrative, and the UN maps have proven iffy. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NPLACE per the UN map. Smartyllama (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Dots on maps are not sufficient verification: we have found over and over that there isn't anything where these maps have a dot. If there was a UN document that talked about some activity at a place, yes, that would be corroborating, but a dot is not good enough. For all we know, it's simply copied from the geonames data. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from WP:NGEO: This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. The fact that it appears as a dot on a UN map [68] does not establish notability. Furthermore the fact that there doesn't appear to be anything at this location calls the map into question. Hut 8.5 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails V and everything else, Not There.L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swanepoel Power 200[edit]

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

A fairly obvious press release, not an encyclopedia article. Loaded with references -- to the bios of people being name-dropped here. Arguably qualifies for speedy deletion as an advertisement. Part of a walled garden involving Stefan Swanepoel. Calton | Talk 23:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional, and every source seems to basically say nothing more than "XXX was featured in this list," and is hence a passing mention. There is no reliably sourced evidence that this is anything other than a resume-padding nomination. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa B[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a spoken word poet, with no strong claim to passing Wikipedia's inclusion standards for either writers or musicians and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The only real claim of notability here is winning a local literary award for a chapbook, whereas "notable because awards" for a writer requires national literary awards on the order of the Governor General's Awards or the Griffin Poetry Prize, and the only references here are a primary source list of the participants at a literary event from that event's own self-published website and two pieces in university student newspapers. The latter two sources would be fine for supplementary confirmation of facts after the article had already cleared WP:GNG on better ones, but are not widely distributed enough be bringers of GNG in their own right if they're the best sources that can be provided -- but on a ProQuest search all I can find for her is a couple of readings in event calendars, not substantive coverage about her, and I can find even less on Google, where even using the search term "Lisa B poet" to filter out Lisa B(arbuscia) the fashion model still gets me hits for Lisa B(ernstein) the American jazz singer instead of Lisa B(aird) the Canadian slam poet.
I simply can't find any viable new sourcing to get her over GNG, and the article claims nothing about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, first of all a big thanks to Bearcat for their well set out nomination (if only more nominators would show the research that they have done into the subject ... sigh), anyhow did find that one of her works appears in the 2016 anthology The Remedy: Queer and Trans Voices on Health and Health Care, that won 2017 lambda award for LGBTQ Anthology, but still not enough so a delete from me, unless more can be found. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Megacities in Judge Dredd. Obviously, the target article may be brought under the hammers of deletion, shall anybody wish so. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hondo City[edit]

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

Yet another plot summary with no indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Megacities in Judge Dredd per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional cruft. Megacities in Judge Dredd is equally as bad as this one in terms of non-notability. Even if merged, it will likely be deleted soon anyway._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are independent, published sources for the broader topic of Megacities in Judge Dredd, so the !vote above seems to be begging a relecanr question. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Andrew. Whether the proposed target meets our standards is a separate issue from this AFD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Megacities in Judge Dredd. Obviously, the target article may be brought under the hammers of deletion, shall anybody wish so. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brit-Cit[edit]

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

Even more plot-OR without evidence of RW notability. The sources are all primary except for one forum. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Megacities in Judge Dredd per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional cruft. Megacities in Judge Dredd is equally as bad as this one in terms of non-notability. Even if merged, it will likely be deleted soon anyway._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Andrew. Whether the proposed target meets our standards is a separate issue from this AFD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceel Garab Jeelow[edit]

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

This was created quite a bit later than the other Somali towns we've been discussing, and there are some issues here. The article name itself can be looked up in geonames, and it is a locality which is once again a blank spot on the map. The text of the article, however, claims another name, which geonames does not recognize; moreover, a link to getamap is given, but the coordinates it provides are not even vaguely close to those from geonames (it's almost three degrees further west, for one thing), and it's not apparent that there's anything at that location either. I'm going to have to call this one "unverifiable". Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the map doesn't appear to be entirely blank, there's something here very close to the claimed location which looks like it might be a collection of shacks, but Geonames has proven itself to be very unreliable with regard to Somali towns and I think we need another source. Hut 8.5 22:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails V L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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