Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday July 9 (Tue) July 8 (Mon) July 7 (Sun) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 22 March	24 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gwent Local History Council[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. The organisation has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. The journal published by the organisation does not meet WP:JOURNALCRIT and so the page can't be moved to have the journal as its main subject either. DferDaisy (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A small organisation, unlikely to have (m)any paid employees. No refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass the notability guidelines DocumentError (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.No RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:57, 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 result was Keep. Clear consensus to keep. Should have been closed very early as this is a merge proposal and doesn't belong in AfD. Michig (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction community[edit]

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

It's about time we merged this WP:POVFORK back into sexual predator. It's a single topic.This article has been tagged for irredeemable POV and UNDUE issues for a long time, and that seems to me the only way to fix it. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a synonym for pick up artists, and their community - clearly pick up artists are real - this is an actual concept, and they have seminars and meetings and swap notes. The article may need a name change, and the bias dealt with, but its clearly an actual concept, with participants in numerous countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at issue. The problem is that there is no objective distinction between pick-up artists and sexual predators. It's a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of Pick up artists (in fact i hate them), but clearly there is a distinction between PUA (the focus being that this group is about using/prefecting techniques to seduce/pick up women) and sexual predators, who are people who will break the law to get sex. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Removal of this article is nothing less than restraining free speech. Seduction community / PUA is a genuine concept and in my extensive reading on the matter the proponents DO NOT advocate coercion or any other behaviour that is non-consensual. Moves to remove this article appear to be derived from a pro-feminist agenda that is 1: not fully informed about the issues at hand nor 2: willing to accept that men have the right to be fully informed about the issues that matter to them. Thank you for your informed intelligent consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashmanthecat (talk • contribs) — Flashmanthecat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See WP:FREESPEECH. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename/Refocus to pick-up artist per WP:COMMONNAME - Eh. Yep, a whole lot in common with sexual predator, but the vast majority of sources I'm seeing for the latter are crime-related, and there's a ton of coverage of social/cultural aspects of pick-up artists. You could argue it's a subtype, but notable in its own right. This presumes it being renamed pick-up artist or something similar as "seduction community" does not look to be the common name for this. I'd be more likely to support deletion of the other article, which is all over the place and does not seem to have a clearly consistent definition (not that that's something that needs to be resolved here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am OK with that, but there is still the issue of #MeToo and the fact that there is actually no objective distinction between these self-styled pick-up artists and sexual predators: indeed, they are a form od sexual predator. The entire focus of the field is to coerce women into sex. If consent would be freely given, there would be no need for the armoury of psychological tools they use. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator is not asking for deletion, but for a merge. That being said, I agree with Rhododendrites' suggestion of renaming to pick up artists. Nom's suggestion that pick up artists are sexual predators is problematic in a POV sense anyway. Acebulf (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously pick-up "artist" is a concept that has been reported on. Fields with negative coverage (sometimes deservedly) are still fields. Sexual predator is a criminal / legal term and we should not indirectly label people as criminals. BLP violation. GuzzyG (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concept meets the WP:GNG, similarly to how we cover the Suffragettes and the Women's liberation movement in different articles. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rename to pick-up artist per WP:COMMONNAME and Rhododendrites Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable content, although a rename to pick-up artist sounds like a good idea. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename into pick-up community. As to the initial notion of the nominator, I consider that the sexual predator article is a much more likely candidate for deletion as it has virtually no definable subject and is more likely something for the Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. --eugrus (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it gets ample coverage so its notable. If you want to merge or rename it, that's a different discussion. Dream Focus 18:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Palzewicz[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate for Congress. References are all for his announcement to seek office. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. article created by paid contributor. reddogsix (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed as passing WP:NPOL, and other than that the only other paths for a candidate to get into Wikipedia are (a) to show and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, or (b) to show and properly source that his candidacy is so much more notable than most other people's candidacies that he can credibly claim his candidacy to be a special case. (The textbook example here is Christine O'Donnell, who exploded to such a wild volume of nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is actually at least twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual senator she lost to.) The existence of a bit of local coverage in the candidate's own district's own local media is not enough to deem a candidate notable, because no candidate in any election anywhere ever fails to have that. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day in November if he wins the seat, but nothing stated or sourced here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per nom. If and when he wins, someone can recreate the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above - nominated only. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- Dane ^talk 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article does not satisfy WP:NPOL, non-notable candidate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. There is agreement that the topic is sufficiently notable. Issues associated with promotion and reliable sourcing can be dealt with through editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potassium polyacrylate[edit]

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

Simple cation replacement of existing article Sodium polyacrylate - no support that there is any difference beyond that. Additionally the article is almost a word for word copy of https://www.howtor.com/super-absorbent-polymer-plants-potassium-polyacrylate.html which makes this article more advertisement than informative. PRehse (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I cannot evaluate the copyvio issues at the moment, but searching discloses that this is a reasonably well-known material with a variety of uses distinct from those of its sodium-based analogue. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regarding the potential copyvio, the author of the Howtor article is Fenglai Dou, while the editor who created the Wikipedia page is User:Doufenglai. This makes me think the contributing editor is the copyright holder. It does mean that the references to the Howtor page aren't kosher - that page is not the editor's source for the information, it is just a mirror (or the Wikipedia page is). Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With further digging, there is almost certainly an undeclared COI. The user reports on his user page that he is Marketing Manager for Ma's Group Inc. The only other citation on the Potassium polyacrylate page is the corporate site of SOCO Chemical, part of Ma's Group, who specialize in Super Absorbent Polymers. At best this is COI, but may even be paid editing. Agricolae (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the detailed info about my career: I work in a trade company. My job is to operate Alibaba.com (a B2B platform) and get inquiries from this website. I submit products (including superabsorbent polymer, water treatment chemicals, Micro algae products, floodbag, etc. ) there and update them. I told this personal information to clarify that, a well-known material established on Wikipedia would not help me or my company. And I would appreciate you if you can stop digging me from now on.Doufenglai (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi guys! Actually, this is my first article on Wikipedia and I really admire PRehse's rigorous (and I like aikido&Kungfu too). About this article (potassium polyacrylate), I want to point out that, potassium polyacrylate is so different from sodium polyacrylate (character, uses, price, you can imagine the differences between NaOH and KOH). And it's necessary to have an own article for potassium polyacrylate. Another side, howtor.com is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License(just like Wikipedia) and there are no copyvio & advertisement issues :) --The guy working in a polymer company since 2014. Doufenglai (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A marketing manager for a manufacturer of the product who created the page based only on their own and their company's writings really should declare a Conflict of Interest as per WP:AFDFORMAT and WP:AVOIDCOI, both here and on the Talk page of the page itself. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be keep casue there're differences between them:https://www.packrain.com/potassium-polyacrylate-vs-sodium-polyacrylate.html. Deflie (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be enough references already and I think it's necessary to keep. Revealor (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough references? How so? It currently has one, an unreference essay written by the page creator on a different on-line platform that it largely copied verbatim. That abysmally fails WP:RS and WP:V. (It used to have a second reference to the company web site of the apparent employer of the Wikipedia creator, who as marketers of the product cannot be viewed as a neutral/independent source.) Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must say this is strange behavior for a chemistry article but all of the keep votes are SPAs - I smell socks which reinforces the promotional vibe.PRehse (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a chemistry (especially isn't a "Simple cation replacement of sodium polyacrylate" as you said.). Potassium polyacrylate's mainly application is water retaining agent --which is an important Drought-resistant solution in agriculture as same as drip irrigation equipment. And I think this would bring more keep votes. (not promotional vibe or "SPAs" stuff.)Doufenglai (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Important' is in the eye of the beholder, and best demonstrated by citation of substantial independent coverage. The only citations now or previously in the article, the only evidence of importance, is one to your own essay, which only reinforces your own interest, and one from a company trying to sell it, which shows it is important to their bottom line, but little else. If this is so important, where is the significant independent reliable coverage, not written by you. Agricolae (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding. If the only issue is lacking of citations, I will post them on article and discussion is down here.Doufenglai (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor making their only-ever edit to Wikipedia even removed the AfD notice from the page before a bot restored it. As you say, very strange for an article on a chemical. I am really torn over this one, because I suspect the chemical itself is notable, but I lack the time or inclination to do the due diligence. However, the page as written is somewhat promotional in tone, lacks any WP:RS, and has formatting problems (lettered sections, a 'tip' that I just removed - Wikipedia doesn't do tips). I would lean toward recommending 'stubify', but I have serious doubts that such an edit wouldn't be repeatedly subverted given the apparent sock/meat puppetry and COI. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I can't find any of your comments about potassium polyacrylate (the title of this article). I know the author of articles is kind of important and digging someone maybe more interesting than do the due diligence a "chemical". But the judgment would be meaningless when you're unfamiliar it, right? Secondly, an IP editor who even removed the AfD notice is not a reason to delete or keep this article at all. (In my opinion, this guy is just not familiar the wiki rules and not like the red frame)Doufenglai (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship is usually not an issue. However, it is important when the page is directly copied from another page - that is at worst a copyright infringement (illegal), and at best plagiarism (extremely bad form), unless the author is the same, in which case it is neither (though still not best practice). That had to be resolved because a copyright violation merits immediate deletion. Seeing that the author was the same immediately removed the concern. However, it also made any reference to that page a circular citation, like citing a Wikipedia mirror of your own edit (or for that matter, Wikipedia does not host personal essays, and you can't get around it by first posting it somewhere else then copying it over with a citation), which is worth noting since it is the only surviving source given. Authorship can also be an issue when there is a COI, and I didn't have to do any digging - you put the information right on you User page. One does not have to be familiar with a particular subject to determine whether it has received substantial independent coverage, and yes, I could tell. Here is a thought, though - you could remove all question by using your expertise and interest to rewrite the article with a more neutral encyclopedic tone, supported by reliable sources that are independent of both you and Ma's group. That would go a long way toward assuaging concerns. Agricolae (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinions patiently. So far I know the issue is lacking of citations, and I will post them on article. Besides, like I said before, a well-known material established on Wikipedia would not help me or my company. Only on alibaba.com, there are more than 700 suppliers sell potassium polyacrylate. (and there're hundreds of B2B platforms in the world) People would buy it everywhere when they need. I mean a fruiterer surely can establish an article about banana on Wikipedia, right? By the way, you use "digging" first then I followed :) Doufenglai (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed would not be surprising were a banana enthusiast to write a Wikipedia page on bananas, but I would expect that banana enthusiast to be aware of sources other than ones they have written themselves, or are on their company's web site. Most enthusiasts cast a wide net for material about things that interest them. What is indeed a challenge for a banana enthusiast is to write an article about bananas that is not enthusiastic, that doesn't for example, call them 'unique', but instead has a neutral encyclopedic tone. Still, that is what a Wikipedia page should be. (As to 'digging', I clicked at the linked reference and read the banner at the top of the page, so not exactly major excavation.) Notability is not established by how many people sell it, but by how many people write substantial independent coverage of it. Google Scholar returns about 1200 hits, and though I haven't opened any of them up, I would have to think some of them would be sufficient to establish notability if only someone would incorporate that material into the article. As an aside a lot of them on the first page have nothing to do with agriculture: I see superconduction, pharmacodynamics, and what looks like electrophoresis, which confirms my suspicion that the current article is giving undue weight to what is just one application of the polymer, like writing an article on sodium chloride and only talking about how much better it makes french fries taste. Agricolae (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for repeat the importance of citations for Wikipedia article. If you have no more objection about my last comments except the "digging thing" and "banana metaphor ", I do suggest to get back to the subject - Are the citations/references of this article available enough to keep. (I just add some citations on the article. )Doufenglai (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you revised my typographical errors, thanks for that. And I think it would be much better if give time to develop. Doufenglai (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are still several problems with the quality of the sourcing. For starters, the current references 2 and 6 are not only incomplete, they are so incomplete that you apparently did not realize they are referring to the exact same publication. And that is not the only problem with them. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources (research reports), but more important is the quality of the publication. The International Journal of Current Research is what is considered by many to be a 'predatory open access journal', nothing but a money-making scheme in disguise. These journals charge large fees to publish any paper sent to them, and do only superficial editing if any - in one instance a scientist submitted a paper, a significant part of which was nothing but a repeated obscenity. They published it without anyone even looking at the text and noticing what he had done. As such, they do not meet Wikipedia's standard of reliability, being effectively a self-published source. You have also added a thesis, which helps for notability, but represents a primary source as well. And as I hinted before, the page needs to be more about the polymer and less about the one specific application. Agricolae (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks. I will keep working on it. Doufenglai (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep An obvious chemical concept apparently of some note, quick search on Google Scholar indicates no less than 1024 articles discussing this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dart Drug[edit]

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

Was a non-notable Landover, Maryland based retail drug chain which had no significant coverage outside of the DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia markets. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Point of reference, yes I am aware that Dart was part of a larger company (Dart Group) which owned Crown Books and Trak Auto but they have nothing to do with this AfD they may have their own merits, this is about the merits of the drug retail division which again does not have significant enough cover outside of the DC market to warrant its own Wikipedia article. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep GBook searches pulled up, as the first hits, some prominent cases in which Dart was involved. I think the nominator needed to have looked a little harder. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Mangoe: it would be useful if you could give specific sources, not just a vague allusion to a google search. Relisting to allow time for that, and for people to evaluate the sources thus presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the GBook references provide any in-depth information on the company. The Pension Book refers to the company in a scandal involving selling the pension scheme but there's nothing in the article referring to this and there isn't a lot of information in the book about the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The Reluctant Capitalists has a couple of mentions-in-passing but again fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The company also appears to have been involved in a court battle, Dart Drug v. Parke, Davis & Co, but this also isn't mentioned in the article. Overall, company appears to fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Park Davis suit is recounted in the article on Herbert Haft, the chain's founder. In lieu of deletion I would suggest a redirect there if we decide a stand-alone article is not in order. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much corp indepth, mostly about the court cases. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORGDEPTH to be a stand alone article in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ok I'm going to go against the grain here, but I think there is significant merit for keeping this and I urge everyone to reconsider your !votes. I argue that Dart Group is a notable entity as a holding company beyond its notable subsidiaries. There is coverage in WSJ, Fortune Magazine, the New York Times #1, the New York Times #2, as well as ample coverage in the Washington Post which has been dismissed as being "Local." This corporation was a Major, Publicly traded corp with over 10k employees. This unreliable source gives significant detail which shows that there is plenty of material that exists on this corporation for an encyclopedic article, only the need to dig it out of news archives etc. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This coverage, first hit in GBooks search, is also quite significant. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the WP:GNG, so its notable enough to have an article. The reliable sources mentioned by Fiftytwo thirty clearly demonstrate this. Dream Focus 18:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arin Paul[edit]

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

Article Spam Subject lacks sufficient in depth coverage from reliable independent secondary sources. Despite what appears at first glance to be an impressively sourced article, most of the cited references are unreliable and or promotional. Many others either do not mention the subject at all or do so only in passing. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--per nom.And, I've pruned the unreliable sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does he meet WP:DIRECTOR? Are the two shows in India notable? Once has 365 episodes and the other 71, and he directed them all. I see he got some coverage at [1] but no idea if Screen India was ever a notable website. 62 Wikipedia articles currently reference it. Not finding anything else about him. Dream Focus 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom DocumentError (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RS doesn't substantiate him as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The person is not notable, failed WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. - Mar11 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. A redirect can be created separately. Sandstein 10:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K2-157b[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Article is tagged as possibly failing WP:GNG but has not been improved. References to this planet are only found in a single paper detailing a large list of new exoplanets found in the K2 survey. It is also included in the standard exoplanet databases. I found no other references, technical or popular. Lithopsian (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand the premise for the AFD and was on the verge of expressing an opinion to delete. However, in researching the article I came across a List of exoplanets, List of exoplanets discovered between 2000–2009, List of exoplanets discovered in 2010, List of exoplanets discovered in 2011 and so on and so on. In reviewing the “Lists” I noticed that a majority of the Exoplanets listed have a blue link to a small article giving a brief informative description of the subject, how it was discovered, and other facts associated with the subject. I appreciate that a vast majority of these individual articles will never progress pass this level in the near future, due to technology limitations, however, that does not mean the article will stay in its current state perpetually. As our technology advances in viewing space so will our knowledge with regards to individual exoplanets and at that time the articles can be expanded. In the meantime I see nothing wrong with having a short informative piece about an individual extrasolar planet. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the moment, the sole reference is essentially an entry in a list. Which is where this belongs. We don't need a separate article for every exoplanet discovered, only for the ones which feature something extraordinary that has resulted in significant coverage. Until more information becomes available about this exoplanet, or something about it is found to be extraordinary, it belongs as an entry in a list and no more. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be somewhat more explicit. Is there anything in the article that is not present on the single line in this list? If not, why have an article?Tarl N. (discuss) 16:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep meets WP:RS and WP:V without problems. I agree that notability is borderline, but this is not a topic that falls into WP:NOT or with significant bias or factual issues. I'd rather keep this based on good faith on the authors' parts. At a more subjective level, I found the article mildly interesting and would assume others would as well. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the refs support notability, there are two which look like scientific papers from which the data in this article is deduced. Szzuk (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I don't see much in this article that can't be covered by a list such as List of exoplanets (full). Praemonitus (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment that when I looked for what might reference this page (assuming it was only referenced by the lists it would be redirected to), I got an absurdly long list of articles which didn't obviously relate to that exoplanet. It's been added to ((2018 in space)), so we get all sorts of unrelated articles pointing to this. If we do redirect it, we should remove it from that template. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I see the argument that there are many exoplanets on wikipedia, (and lists of them) the ones I looked at still had good enough RS to substantiate an article. Clearly if there are bajillions of exoplanets, and many not of note, then we don't need pages for all of them.... they can sit on a list page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Understand the rational, and you are right, there are an infinite amount of exoplanets and as such, we here at Wikipedia, could have an infinite amount of articles addressing each. However, at this time, what we have is a list of specific exoplanets, that this particular one is listed in and which has been confirmed and verified by both secondary and third party reliable sources, and as such becomes notable. And again address the area that there is information about this “rock” . A blue link to the limited amount of information we have on the subject is well within our guidelines and as such believe should be kept. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Deathlibrarian. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tjebbe van Tijen[edit]

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

I can find no references to Tjebbe van Tijen in the media that would support notability. His name arises quite frequently in the European press and, to a lesser extent, the US press but always as the attributed photographer for an image. These articles giving him photo credit are never about him Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo, you have had some involvement with this article, so you may have researched notability previously. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are many mentions of him in Google Book search. I don't have time to look at them in detail, few are full view, some are not english, but things that stand out are "founded the (short lived) Research Center Art Technology and Society in Amsterdam" - "In Amsterdam, the archives of whoever ventures into the field of politics and culture will sooner or later end up with Tjebbe van Tijen. For many people he is the embodiment of storage mania." - "Artists were early adopters of the web, and by 1999, when the web was a mere six-year-old, curator Tjebbe van Tijen was already ..." - Also, this looks like reliable source. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Weak Keep. He is in Christiane Paul's Digital Art, which counts for something. I see enough other mentions in Gbooks to say he is interesting and he exists and is maybe a small part of art history based on the sources.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep going with the trend here... He has been very active for a very long time (see exhibitions here [2]) and it seems like he mostly collaborates with others, or works under project names, which is why a straight up google/db search isn't going to get the goods. Theredproject (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 125 articles on Google scholar some of which he has written, other discussing his work, though not sure he is the actual subject of any of them. Facitva brings up no articles about him. Borderline keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Do have some coverage, even though might not be as strong coverage as we wish to for his contribution is pre internet time - see here [3] and [4]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I felt like "weak delete" after looking at web coverage, and then found enough more at Google Books to end up in "keep" territory, based not only on significant coverage (of which there is little on the web) but also what's said in various sound sources about his significance. Before I got to Google Books, I found him cited extensively and mentioned once in the text of this book, I found two sources here and here focusing on a particular graphic he created, and bona fide significant coverage in this article devoted to him. At Google Books I quickly came across this, describing him as ubiquitous in the field of Amsterdam culture and politics, this stating that "For many, Tjebbe van Tijen embodies the Will to Archive, and this, declaring that "his ideas founded the largest counter-movement the Netherlands ever has experienced against city planning. The resistance eventually led to riots ...". He gets around in a variety of fields, and enough diverse, independent sources highlight the impact that he has had that I feel the article qualifies to remain. However, the article ought to be expanded to reflect all of this. Largoplazo (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smartlook[edit]

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

An article on a start-up firm and its product of the same name. (Note there are other products of this name, such as a facial cosmetic.) The brno.idnes.cz reference is a profile/interview about the firm in its local media. Inclusion of the firm's product in the Princeton researchers' findings of problems with session replay tools has been noted in a reference and elsewhere but I don't see those concerns as sufficient to demonstrate notability for the firm or its product. At the moment, I don't see sufficient available in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Non notable minor business, fails WP:NCORP completely and no substantial coverage to meet GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mwasiti[edit]

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

Non-notable performer. Pay-for-edit spam. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has been nominated for a major music award in her country. Wikipedia is already far too ethnocentric. Let's not further the problem by discounting award nominees from non-Anglophonic countries.--TM

04:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable musician. Possibly fails WP:ANYBIO given that said policy requires The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Given that Wikipedia takes a global audience into account, I'm of the opinion that the Tanzania Music Awards are not "well-known" enough, but this argument could go either way. However, the subject also fails WP:MUSIC in my mind. For example, WP:MUSICBIO asserts that notability can be implied by if they meet conditions such as Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award or Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. I am of the opinion that the Tanzania Music Awards are not to be considered a major music award like those listed by MUSICBIO (this is on the basis that these awards have accrued much more coverage in WP:VER sources.) As far as having a single or an album on a national music chart, I found one website that made such a claim [5] (among some other unsourced/unverifiable claims), but I was unable to reproduce this and found no mention of Mwasiti when conducting a year-by-year search for anything on [6]. WP:VER coverage and accurate coverage is also lacking, so WP:SIGCOV is also an issue. So in short, the artist in question has been nominated multiple times for a regional music award but has yet to win an award for her work, nor has she produced a single or album that has made it onto a national music chart.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a side-discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Nomination for major award? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Her single “Nalivua Pendo” was number one on the Tanzania radio charts for eight consecutive weeks and won "Best Zouk Song" at the 2009 Tanzania Music Awards. According to WP:ANYBIO she passes due to "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." She passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" as she's one of the most popular artists in Tanzania. She passes WP:MUSIC for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" and "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Lonehexagon (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:MUSIC for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Just because the article was made by an editor that was paid to do, it does not mean that the article has to be deleted, as any offending sections can be edited. Wpgbrown (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Lonehexagon She passes, as she has had a single that charted "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The positive voters above (not including the one who tried to pull our heartstrings over ethnocentrism) have made convincing arguments on notability in her country's music scene. A "point of view" edit tag should be added or we could rewrite the parts that are obviously from a paid source. If the result of this AfD is KEEP, the closing Admin can contact me at my talk page and I will work on improving the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really the closing admin's job to notify people. Just put this page on your watchlist. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a friendly suggestion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thuso Mbedu[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Appears to be part of a big pile of crappy pay-for-edit articles about south african performers created in the past few months. Page reads like a resume (can anybody possibly care about a two-month stint at an acting studio?) Parts of this are a copyvio of https://southafricancelebnews.i-celebnews.com/2017/05/page/90/. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've updated her article with more information and citations, and addressed the concerns of the nominator. She was nominated for an Emmy, has starred in 3 shows, has been profiled by Huffington Post and Forbes. She is regularly reported on, interviewed, and discussed in South Africa news and appears to be extremely popular in that country. The article passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. She also passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Lonehexagon (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements by Lonehexagon. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per improvements by Lonehexagon x 2. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ducsai Bende[edit]

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

Hoax Norden1990 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I added a Not English tag, which was a mistake, because even though I can't understand the article without the use of a translator, it appears there's a date of death in the future. Qualifies for G3. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bombardier[edit]

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

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't find anything to substantiate the notability of this person. There's some coverage in a local newspaper – he had a break-in at his design studio, he doesn't like the council's plans for a garage building, he helped to co-ordinate a local project to promote graffiti on the walls of his town. I accept that a street artist may be notable without meeting the usual expectations of WP:ARTIST (work in major museum collections, exhibitions in substantial publicly-owned galleries or spaces etc); but where is the substantial in-depth coverage in several reliable sources that would allow or enable us to write an article about this one? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nom is correct: there just aren't any sources out there to establish any kind of notability. The only good source is about him being a crime victim, not an artist.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a significantly redacted version of a much longer article that was a gigantic WP:COPYVIO, just for the record — but even the longer version didn't reliably source any particularly strong claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE either, but was highly advertorialized and referenced almost entirely to blogs and Facebook or Instagram posts. And no, one piece of local media coverage about a break-in at his studio is not, in and of itself, enough to claim that he passes GNG in lieu of failing creative, either: if you're going for "notable because media coverage exists", rather than "notable because he's accomplished something that objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion criterion", then it takes a lot more than just one or two pieces of media coverage to get there. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a short CBC video piece[7], but that still isn't enough. Theredproject (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Missing substantive RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not substantiated by third party reliable sources; not notable, failed WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG -- Dane ^talk 18:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ofogh Koorosh Chain Stores[edit]

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

Ofogh Koorosh Chain Stores is not a notable chain store in iran, I don't see enough sources making it notable Mardetanha (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass the GNG and SSG. KingAndGod 17:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hepapressin[edit]

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

Article created by the person selling this. Online mentions are only promotional and message board comments. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It has been up for a decade and the only references appear to be the book published by (apparently) the editor who created the page and a pair of passing references. It gets exactly zero PubMed mentions, and though there are a few Google Books hits, many of them just come up as related to the topic, not mentioning the drug at all in the visible summary. Those that do look to be passing mention, one saying it isn't available any more, plus one that quotes the web page of, you guessed it, the same editor who made our page and is selling the drug. This needs to go away. Agricolae (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage of this found in the medical literature when searching using PubMed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a non-notable experimental treatment available only at a single clinic. Acebulf (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete no MEDRS refs on this. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not needed Waddie96 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Afd is not cleanup. Sandstein's argument and source are compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Council of Basel-Stadt[edit]

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

Non up-to-date information about a political body, which changes at least every 4 years. Duplicate information in Basel#Politics. ZH8000 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why would you say it's not up to date? It has information about the last election, which took place in 2016. Agree it's a duplicate of what's on the Basel political page, so a redirect without prejudice for a fork is what I'm thinking here. SportingFlyer talk 05:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, it's not up-to-date. It stopped after the first round of the election. In the mean time, the second round has passed and the new government is working – the "Current composition" has not been updated so far. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in principle. Executive body of major sub-national governmental entity (roughly equivalent in powers to a US state) - it is arguable (in theory - I think that it would probably be contested in practice) that every member of this body, past or present, is notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES. And the nominator is wrong both in regarding the fact that an article is outdated as a reason for deletion (in fact, it is a reason for correcting the article with verifiable updated information or, failing that, being clear about when the information was true) and in stating that the article does not cover the second round of the election (it does). However, the article as it stands has some bad faults. In particular, while the nominator is not entirely correct in declaring the article outdated, it is understandable why they might think so when one realises that the article is almost entirely about the 2016 election to the Executive Council rather than the Executive Council itself. For political bodies like this one, we generally accept the inclusion in Wikipedia of information on elections to them, and sometimes in the article on the political body itself. However, if election information starts dominating the main article on a political body, it is usually moved into a spinoff article - but standardly, only once we have enough information in the main article about the body itself to show why elections to the body should be considered notable. As the article stands, though, the election information is undue there, and Basel#Politics probably contains more of the information one would expect in the article than anywhere else in Wikipedia. For the moment, therefore, I am quite prepared in practice to see a partial Merge of any information from the article that is neither already there nor currently undue or a Redirect with page history to Basel#Politics, to preserve the election data in an attributable format, in the hope that, sometime in the future, it will be possible to use the data in an article where it will not be undue. PWilkinson (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Functionally the equivalent of the office of governor of a US state, or of a devolved government in the UK. The holders of such offices are notable per WP:NPOL, so it follows that the office itself is notable as well. There is of course a wealth of reliable sourcing, primarily in German, e.g.: Buser, Denise (2008). Neues Handbuch des Staats- und Verwaltungsrechts des Kantons Basel-Stadtl (2. ed.). Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn. ISBN 978-3-7190-2597-7. (a textbook on the constitutional and administrative law of the canton of Basel-Stadt). Sandstein 10:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to UCTV (University of Connecticut). Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live! with Pete Finch[edit]

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

Combination promotional biography/tv show article. I cannot find sourcing that backs up the claims in the article. The article claims that the show is distributed by major cable and satellite providers, but I have found no proof of this. Since the show does not seem to be notable, I don't see any other claim of notability for Pete Finch. Rusf10 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with selective merge (a sentence or 2,) to UCTV (University of Connecticut), station where this show aired. There is some coverage in reliable, independent sources (already on page.) Also, it doesn't confer notability, but Finch's Dad, Bill Finch (politician) was a well-known politician in Connecticut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't confer notability, why even mention it?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per E.M.Gregory assuming that article is kept at its AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was procedural close. Redirects are discussed at WP:RfD. Thanks, ansh 666 22:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi wedding songs[edit]

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

Punjab is shared Between India and Pakistan. While GeoffreyT2000 made a biased redirect to Pakistani Wedding songs. It's recommended to delete this redirect. My Lord (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend procedural close. Nominated page is a redirect and any further discussion should happen at WP:RFD. Nominator applied AfD tag to the redirect target Pakistani wedding songs, which I have reverted. As for the accusation of "bias", I'm didn't find a justification for it, or any talk page discussion of the matter save for nom's template on GT2k's talk page. --Finngall ^talk 17:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note New discussion now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 23#Punjabi wedding songs Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Really just an essay, but astounding it lasted a decade. Given the age I'd love to redirect it somewhere, but I can't find a good target. If anyone can think of one, please let me know and I'll restore/retarget. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classical and quantum conductivity[edit]

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

The article has no clear purpose. Either it points to be a historical retelling of electrical conductivity formulas, an introduction to quantum conductivity, or a comparison article between quantum and classical phenomena. Either way it does no reach its purpose. The article is incomplete and it does not discuss the inaccuracies of a classical model, aside from using a few analogies. It is only linked by other articles as a curiosity. Plus no sources. It may be improved, but we might just do better without it. MaoGo (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by MaoGo; I can just barely conceive of a worthwhile article on this topic, but it would be better written starting from scratch. --Steve (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:TNT. Reads like an undergrad essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
TNT While the article's content is a mangling of different concepts, there is genuinely enough material for an article to be made here. I would be willing to look at doing the TNT if time permits. Sources should not be hard too find. Acebulf (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could TNT it, but we would have to agree on how we can handle an article like that. Personally, I would prefer to prioritize the rest of the solid state physics articles. --MaoGo (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/TNT per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. Szzuk (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Shaw[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any sources beyond the Wakefield Express, which for a seemingly international starring role in a movie suggest the whole thing might be a hoax. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure I'm buying this either; there are almost no sources (let alone illustrating the WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage demanded by WP:ANYBIO), that the claims made are—unverifiable at the very least, shall we say. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability stands. Credible sources are given. Makro (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes thelovelygrace.blogspot.co.uk a credible source? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are MANY pages on Wikipedia with far fewer sources. I have included plenty of credible sources that show notability. Just because I included 2 blogspot pages doesn't discredit the others.Makro (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages have no bearing on this AfD. reddogsix (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out a fact. The user claims no sources provide proof of notability when they do. Notability is proven from various sources. Makro (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Makro: Name two. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Makro: I think Ritchie333 was probably just taking one as an example; unfortunately, taken as a body, your collective sources most definitely do not constitute reliable sources—lacasting, his own website, that which has been mentioned, Planet DP, YouTube...and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is worth a read as well, regarding what other articles say compared to this one. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: I beg to differ. I believe the sources to be reliable (especially the news sources). Also to point out the YouTube source simple proves his YouTube channel of work. Just like it is a reliable source for every YouTube performer on Wikipedia. If it isn't reliable her then EVERY YouTuber who has a wiki should not have YouTube as a source.Makro (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. It should remain so it can grow. So that other editors can add to it. The only way Wikipedia works is for everyone to add.Makro (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. The article’s claim that he “got his big break” by “starring” in Vampire Academy is fanciful seeing as how he wasn’t even credited for his fleeting appearance. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: Actually if you read the article I wrote supporting role and if you check the IMDB page for Vampire Academy he is credited. Makro (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it said starring and I corrected it. And here is the IMDB link - note “Nathan Shaw - Dhampir (Uncredited)” toward the bottom. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: If you've seen his IMDB then you clearly know he has notability enough for a WIKI page.Makro (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source - WP:RS/IMDB. reddogsix (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was as data on it generally can only be added with verifiable proof, usually by the studio or production company.Makro (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, people in the entertainment industry have access. They don't provide any proof to make edits. Because it's crowd-sourced like Wikipedia, it fails WP:SPS. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB has been widely been regarded as an unsuitable source for years. See WP:CITEIMDB. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above, resoundingly non-notable. Almost half of it is copied/close-paraphrased from his revoltingly self-promotional website. Since I've recently been bollocked by Ritchie333 for dealing with copyvio without due regard for the feelings of the copyright violator, I've not touched it. Ritchie, can I leave it to you to sort out this one as you think best (Earwig can't read his page, DupDet seems to be down, I used copyleaks.com)? Oh, and has anyone asked Makro if he/she has any personal or professional connection to Mr Shaw? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I do not have any connection. I just try and create pages for people that are missing from Wikipedia.Makro (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used a tried and tested method of putting the two pages into separate windows side-by-side and firing random phrases into the search bar while looking, and while a few half-sentences lined up, it doesn't look like a blatant cut and paste job. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking of stuff like "professional dance and musical theatre at the Phil Winston's Theatreworks in Blackpool". It's not really conceivable that two distinct authors would have chosen those exact words, nor that they should both independently have chosen to mix the American spelling "program" and UK spelling "honours". Anyway, I wonder where he'd have gone if he'd wanted to study unprofessional dance? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A nightclub? The sentence fragment you mentioned was one of the ones I was thinking about; I've copyedited it anyway to be on the safe side - plus it gets rid of tautologies like "for 3 years from 2007 to 2010". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and like Ritchie333, I think it looks like it could be a hoax. -- Dane ^talk 18:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons cited, the creator should stop creating new pages on actors until they understand WP:ENT Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Ponies NoteBook[edit]

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

Notability concerns since 2015 have never been addressed. It looks like the program itself only existed for about 3-4 months before shutting down. Used as an Other stuff exists argument by new editors. Bkissin (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An app that came and went, like many others. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE completely. No evidence in the article or searches of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The rationales for Delete seem to indicate that notability is not (yet) apparent here. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Shroff[edit]

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

Weak claims to fame per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals; bringing artists from Seychelles to an exhibition, and being written about in Airlife Magazine, a quarterly that distributed at a single French airport. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "An exhibition"? Shroff was the first person to bring established Seychellois artists to the Venice Art Biennale (he was also a curator). The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "First person to bring <nationality> artists to <art organization>" does not meet any notability criteria that I'm aware of. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Curating for the Venice Biennale does not make you instantly notable. That is especially the case when there appear to be zero reliable sources available! I did a search in Gnews and Gbooks and came up with a big fat nothing. No sources, no notability. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note' that my vote above was removed by an editor who called it trolling. This is odd as at another AfD a few hours ago, my vote was removed by The Master, the editor above. I would encourage you both to respect the valid votes of other editors.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What I see by this one: [8] is that he participated in Venice Bienalle as an artist, representing the country. This is one of the most important events in art world, it not the most important. This one grants passing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of a deep dive, I think we should Delete because the two Venice claims aren't exactly what they claim to be. The first one: that he exhibited in Venice is mostly correct, with a key caveat: he showed at one of 48 different "Collateral Events" that are not part of the central Venice programming, but which happen at the same time. He showed at Palazzo Bembo (See here[9]) with 77 other artists. Some of them are well known, but many are unknown. The curators of the exhibition are not particularly well known either: Francesca Crudo, Sarah Gold, Carol Roll and Valeria Romagnini. Of the 77 artists, the majority are redlinked, which is merely a quick shorthand:

Chul Hyun Ahn

Yoshitaka Amano

Alice Anderson

Jan-Erik Andersson

Axel Anklam

Yifat Bezalel

Hans Bischoffshausen

Djawid Borower

Faiza Butt

Mimmo Catania

Genia Chef

Chen Ping

Canal Cheong Jagerroos

Karlyn De Jongh

Scott Eady

Cristiana Fioretti

Marc Fromm

Jakob Gasteiger

Selby Ginn

Kimberley Gundle

Laura Gurton

Patrick Hamilton

Anne Herzbluth

Per Hess

Hirofumi Isoya

Sam Jinks

Grzegorz Klatka

Rori Knudtson

Mehdi-Georges Lahlou

Michele Manzini

Christian Megert

Herre Methorst

David Middlebrook

Atelier Morales

Peter Simon Mühlhäußer

Uli Pohl

Triny Prada

Qin Chong

Stefanus Rademeyer

Nicola Rae

Arnulf Rainer

Bogdan Rata

Thomas Riess

Rene Rietmeyer

Yhonnie Scarce

Wilhelm Scherübl

Dmitry Shorin

Nitin Shroff

The Icelandic Love Corporation

Monika Thiele

Michele Tombolini

Stefan Toth

Suh Jeong Min

VALIE EXPORT

Elena & Vitaliy Vasiliev

Ben Vautier

Raphael Vella

André Wagner

Xing Xin

Plamen Yordanov

Zhang Yu]

Of the second claim, setting aside the question of whether being the curator would establish notability, I can't find verifiable WP:RS that indicate he was the actual curator. The best that I could find was [[10]] or [[11]] which indicate someone else was the curator. His own bio says he "Proposed and collaborated on the 2015 National Pavilion of the Seychelles. La Biennale di Venezia. 56th International Art Exhibition" which would seem to back that up. Maybe TOOSOON, so I am happy if it is recreated in the future, but only with WP:RS and without puffed up claims. Theredproject (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These [12] may or may not help. They were scanned and provided to me by a friend of the subject when I was trying to write the article and asked if they had anything. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the connection to Thomas Darnell (artist)? You're linking to the archive.org page of Thomas Darnell, who you called a friend just now, but you are also the creator of the Thomas Darnell (artist) Wikipedia page. Something is not right there. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. I said the sources were provided by "a friend of the subject". The subject of the article under discussion here is Nitin Shroff, not me. And obviously Darnell knows him, or he wouldn't have attempted to provide sources when I asked him. Your constant Wikistalking of me is becoming tiresome. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird how you pulled those refs from a "friend of the subject" out of thin air, and that you also created a page on wiki for said friend. It's pretty plain what is going on here, and no amount of personal attacks (I can't read, I'm a stalker, whatever) will help to climb out of that hole. Have a great day!104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "pull them out of thin air", I asked for them. Have you skipped your medication? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who did you ask? How did you know to ask for them? What is your connection to the subject or this friend of the subject? My reading comprehension is pretty good, but it doesn't appear you've actually answered those questions. --Calton | Talk 17:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I initially typed out an explanation, but reconsidered as an AfD doesn't seem the right venue for a discussion of how I discovered a couple of artists and then obtained third-party sources about them. And I'm sure that no matter what I say, my words will be twisted to mean something else. I'm really not interested in participating in this any further. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some much stronger evidence of notability is forthcoming. Even the claims being made are pretty weak. --Calton | Talk 17:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is quite misleading. Shroff did have one work exhibited along with those of 77 other artists at a Venice Biennale collateral event in 2013, not part of the official Biennale. This does not pass 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 and WP:ANYBIO. Independent in-depth coverage of him as a person and/or his works is nonexistent. Although he may well have proposed a Seychelles Pavilion for the 2015 Biennale and was described in one 2014 press release as "a curator at the Venice Art Biennale 2015", he definitely wasn't the curator at the 2015 Seychelles Pavillion, nor was he exhibited there. The two artists selected were George Camille and Leon Radegonde. The curators were Sarah MacDonald and Victor Schaub Wong – see [13].

Another misleading sentence which I have since amended was "His work has been covered in Airlife Magazine". First of all Airlife is a give-away magazine put out by Montpellier Airport. Secondly and most importantly, it did not "cover his work". (I've now added a link in the reference to a copy of the magazine.) It was an article about a hotel and had one sentence which said: "[Its] exhibition space devoted to contemporary art has had exhibitions of artists such as Leon Radegonde and Nitin Shroff." That's all. Two other exhibitions are mentioned in the WP article. The Context Gallery in Northern Ireland is a small gallery situated inside a theatre and shows work by "emerging artists" [14]. As for the exhibition at Birla Academy of Art and Culture, there's no way of verifying this since the so-called reference is not a reference at all, it merely repeats the claim which it is referencing. Consequently, there is no way of knowing how many artists participated and which, if any of his works were included. This is all that's available on Shroff at the Birla Academy site. In any case, there appear to be no reviews of these exhibitions or his work or published catalogs. He's had a few more exhibitions, but all at very minor galleries/venues, e.g. [15], Finally why is his birth date given as 1967? According to this, he was born in 1977. Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC) (Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The actual page for Air Life Magazine (also created by The Master) deserves its own AfD as it has no notability as a source or publication.104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged and redirected Airlife Magazine to a section in Montpellier–Méditerranée Airport and left a rationale at Talk:Airlife Magazine. Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soner Akkaya[edit]

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

Non-notable business person that has never had any reliable sources (that I can tell) and I can find no coverage of them. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If you look at the creator of the article back in 2011, you'll see their only three contributions were to this article, meaning they very likely are that person. Not sure how this article has survived seven years. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The DuchAz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable artist. This was created by a paid editor, soft-deleted at the first AfD, restored, deleted again as a copyvio, and brought to DRV. I closed the DRV with the recommendation (based on the comments at that point) that if this was to be recreated, it be done in draft or user space. User:Rusboot chose to ignore that advice and create it back in mainspace. What we've got now is a 1-sentence stub that surely qualifies for WP:G11 and/or WP:A7, but I'm bringing it here to get a clear reading on this so we can stop chasing it around every possible wiki-process. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not yet notable. Lacks sufficient in depth coverage. Trimmed down to stub from artspam.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC. This editor is reviving quite a few soft deletes, as he is a declared paid editor there may be a reason for this. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More low quality articles likely created for pay by Rusboot comparable to Elisakh Hagia and Mwasiti. Fails WP:NMUSIC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The article was rescued and survived this AfD, and many improvements helped the article to pass WP:GNG, so that results to KEEP the article. (non-admin closure) newroderick895 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne State University School of Social Work[edit]

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

This only cites its own website, and the material could easily be covered in the WSU article. I don't think this passes notability. I don't know if there's any use in trying to merge it, or if it should be deleted outright. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator says they are "in the process of continual edits" trying to chase off that speedy deletion, but they have neglected to add any sources that aren't the school's website. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StewdioMACK: The article was created less than 24 hours before this AfD was commenced. How in the world is a "process of continual edits" to improve the article a point for criticism? To the contrary, such a process is natural and praiseworthy in the early stages of an article like this. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Apologies, did not realise how recently the article was created. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WSU School of Social Work is a nationally-ranked program, ranked No. 34 among schools of social work. See here. This article was just created and needs work, but perhaps it should be allowed some time to develop before rushing to AfD. Comparable schools of social work have been allowed time to develop articles. Compare UIUC School of Social Work (tied at #17), Graduate School of Social Work at the University of Denver (tied at #17), Smith College School for Social Work (tied at #17), University of Southern California School of Social Work (tied at #17), Rutgers School of Social Work (tied at #17), University of Georgia School of Social Work (tied at #24), Fordham Graduate School of Social Service (tied at #24), ASU College of Public Service & Community Solutions (ranked #30), Tulane University School of Social Work (tied for #38), Florida State University College of Social Work (tied for #38), Saint Louis University School of Social Work (ranked #54), Wurzweiler School of Social Work (#59), FIU Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work (ranked #88). Not sure why WSU should be singled out for deletion in this way. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another ranking site places Wayne State's School of Social Work at #17 nationally for its undergraduate program. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another that ranks Wayne State School of Social Work #2 nationally behind Boston University for its on-line programs. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is specified as not a reason for notability of a topic. This one came to my attention while patrolling because more than 1 article was created yesterday for a WSU department, and both that I found were worthy of merging. The other one is just a copyvio history of the dept and a list of courses. Natureium (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: WP:OSE does not mean that reference should never be made to similar classes of articles. To the contrary, it states: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability ..., and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." My citation of comparable schools of social works is wholly consistent with this principle. Given the national rankings of Wayne State's School of Social Work, and its history dating back to 1935 (making it one of the oldest such schools), please reconsider your position here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft so sources such as the rankings and newspaper articles outside of primary can be added to the article. Leave a redirect to WSU and embedded note in the meantime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: The rankings have now been added to the article. This article now has more than sufficient content for a new article (AfD commenced < 24 hours after creation). I see no valid reason not to allow this article to continue to develop in main space. Cbl62 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have significant coverage in secondary sources to meet WP:GNG? A ranking is usually a passing mention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This question also applies to the other WSU article you just dePRODed (without fixing anything). Natureium (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An academic program's national ranking by a respected and independent authority such as U.S. News & World Report Best Global University Ranking is not a mere "passing reference". To the contrary, such rankings are the bedrock upon which academic institutions compete fiercely and upon which professorial and student recruiting and grant funding rise or fall. A search of newspapers.com turns up 1,259 hits for Wayne State's School of Social Work. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the articles are where? WP:ORGCRIT Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Faculties_and_academic_colleges AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect nothing I can say will change your view, but that's ok, we can respectfully disagree. In any event, it remains my view that the U.S. News & World Report Best Global University Ranking ranking represents significant coverage (indeed, some of the most significant coverage an academic institution can receive) from an independent source, as do the two other independent services ranking this school in the top 20 social work programs in the US. I have also now added several newspaper sources. There is no need for every newspaper source to be added to the article to pass the test of WP:GNG. Your reliance ORGCRIT is misplaced as WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL have been amended within the last month pursuant to an RfC to omit the more limited and prescriptive application to schools and to provide that schools qualify if GNG is satisfied. The article was created within the past 48 hours and should be allowed time to develop -- no different than the articles on the other nationally-ranked social work schools referenced above. And WP:UNIGUIDE is a mere essay that does not in any way modify the GNG standards. Still not seeing a valid reason to single out Wayne State when comparable social work schools (many ranked below Wayne -- and, moreso, just about every high school in America) have had stable articles for years. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The idea that Podunk High School should have an article but a nationally-ranked graduate school cannot is, well, simply ludicrous. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ORG "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: [...] * inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists"", it does not count as significant coverage. This is applicable as per WP:NSCHOOL, "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." For your second point, WSU has an article. An individual unit of a school does not need to have an article. Natureium (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:ORG has been recently amended to expressly state that those prescriptive requirements do not apply to schools and that it is sufficient for a school to pass WP:GNG. Indeed, the second passage you quote says precisely that, i.e., the use of the conjuction "or". Finally, your suggestion that the clear guidance of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be ignored represents Orwellian newspeak, i.e., you are asserting that the WSU School of Social Work is not a school. That argument would have merit if we were talking about a mere academic department within a school or college, but it is incorrect when applied to a separately accredited school or college, even one operating under the broader umbrella of a university. Cbl62 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft I agree with AngusWOOF that we need independent sources that are substantive and that by themselves rankings are insufficient. If there are other articles that also need to be moved to draft space to be consistent with WP:GNG then we'll do that, too. ElKevbo (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the point would be of moving it to draft, as the article is now well developed with abundant independent sourcing -- more than any of the myriad other articles on school of social work. Compare Category:Schools of social work in the United States. Given that we allow articles about small-town high schools, challenging the notability of a nationally-ranked graduate program with an 80-year history of contributing to an important field of study belies all prior precedent with school articles. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." I'm really at a loss to understand the determined struggle to undermine this newly-created article on a well-respected institution of higher education. Cbl62 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an independent school; the university already has an article. If this specific unit of the university is sufficiently notable for its own article then the sourcing in the article does not currently reflect that e.g., you claim that the school has a history of "contributing to an important field of study" but there aren't any independent sources supporting that claim.

The basic underlying premise of WP:N is that we need multiple independent sources that focus specifically on a topic if we're to write an encyclopedia article about it. Frankly, there are very few college and university units - colleges, schools, department, research groups, etc. - that can pass that bar. I imagine that most of those are independently famous (e.g., MIT's Media Lab) or have a lasting and profound influence on their discipline such that even people outside of the discipline have a vague inkling of that influence e.g., the University of Chicago's sociology department and their economics department. So most units, including this one, simply aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. It's not a slight against the unit or its parent organization, just a reflection of the larger context in which we live and the relative importance that we collectively place on publicizing the work and influence of these units. ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clarification: I !voted "Move to draft" as a kindness to the author and other editors interested in this article; the closer is free to interpret it as "Delete" if that is easier or more appropriate. (I'd be fine with moving most articles that fail GNG but have a glimmer of passing at some later date into draft space but that is not a workable, sustainable practice.) ElKevbo (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have greater validity in the context of academic departments within a college or university, but professional schools have separate deans and are "independently accredited". It would be a strange encyclopedia, indeed, if we deemed every high school and every community/junior college to be notable, but at the same time denied the notability of a nationally-ranked professional school.
The fact that most nationally-ranked social work schools (and other professional schools) have Wikipedia articles suggests that your assessment of school notability is far different than the broader Wikipedia community. Under your standard, none of the 31 schools of social work that currently have articles (Category:Schools of social work in the United States) would pass muster as none has the level of independent sourcing that you demand. Indeed, the Wayne article has far more independent sourcing than any of the others.
The community's broad consensus on the notability of such "independently accredited" schools is reflected in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (quoted above), a standard that this article plainly meets.
For proof that your narrow standard (limiting articles on professional schools within broader universities to profoundly influential institutions such as MIT and U. Chicago) has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community, one need only examine the relevant categories, e.g. Category:Schools of medicine in the United States (> 200 schools with articles), Category:Law schools in the United States by state (> 200 schools with articles), Category:Engineering universities and colleges in the United States by state (> 150 schools with articles), Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States (> 60 schools with articles), and Category:Schools of education in the United States by state (> 65 schools with articles).
In sum, this is a good and healthy debate, but current community standards do not warrant singling out WSU's nationally-ranked School of Social Work for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct: I do think that the vast majority of all of the articles you've mentioned fail WP:GNG by lacking independent sources and should be deleted. My intuition is that most of them were created and edited by people with blatant conflicts of interest (e.g., staff, alumni). Like much of Wikipedia, this is an area that receives little attention outside of a handful of editors and many of those editors are only interested in promoting their employer or alma mater, usually in brief, unrepeated spurts of editing. So articles are created that don't meet our wider standards and allowed to remain only because they slip under the radar. All this to say that my comments and !votes here aren't out of some strange prejudice against this school; I don't think that anyone, especially our colleagues who haven't provided any details or explanation, has made the case that this article (nor most of the ones you've mentioned) pass our basic standards of notability. We've pasted together self-interested, minor sources into a lot of paper mache articles and that, of course, is not structurally sound. ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. There are plenty of issues where I have a subjective belief that fans have overdone it, e.g., professional wrestling, MMA, anime/manga, but I nevertheless believe that our current methods of assessing community consensus are far preferable to an elitist, imposed-from-above approach to decide which topics "belong" in a "proper" encyclopedia. (BTW, I have zero affiliation with Wayne State.) Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that a lot of those probably do not pass notability requirements, however, there is a much higher likelihood that law schools and medical schools are independently notable apart of their universities, because of the amount of research and public interest work done that draws media attention to those schools. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – well sourced and is notable as shown by others. Corky 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the GNG sources that are "well sourced"? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage cited in the article from U.S. News & World Report, The Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, Chicago Tribune, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Holland Evening Sentinel, and more. That's pretty solid for an article created less than a week ago. And far more than any other article in Category:Schools of social work in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those are local news sources? Natureium (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but U.S. News & World Report, Chicago Tribune, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Holland Evening Sentinel are not local, and the Detroit Free Press is a major metropolitan daily/regional paper. Cbl62 (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was NOT well-sourced until this past weekend when Cbl62 started adding a detailed and sourced History section. See [16] which was what most of the discussion was based on. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that Cbl62 has done an admirable article rescue attempt. In the state the article was originally in, I would have voted to delete, but the article is now much-improved. Neutrality^talk 22:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above it is much improved, and superior to other schools in Schools of social work Category. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Raval (Playback Singer)[edit]

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

The biggest claim to fame is a participant of a reality show. Not notable enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, he seems to have received a fair amount of coverage from the Times of India; clearly they fancy him at least. It may however still be a case of WP:TOOSOON (as even one of those Times articles says, "he might not be a household name yet, but the young singer is slowly getting there"). In any case, the nominator made the correct choice of deletion process; this way, if it is delted as a result of a discussion, it can later be summarilly deleted under WP:G7 if necessary. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Times of India does a lot of PR, without disclosure, so only ToI articles are not good enough to establish notability in my opinion. At best this is the case of WP:TOOSOON Coderzombie (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for entertainers, celebrities and models (#2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.), and possibly several of the points under WP:MUSICBIO. Sources other than those in article:
• Natalia Ningthoujam (17 November 2017). "Album needs lot of maturity: Darshan Raval". Business Standard. Retrieved 2024-07-11.

• Bhatt, Vrunda R.. "Darshan to Make Singing Debut in Bhai's Film: Amdavadi Darshan Raval Marks His Debut in Bollywood with Prem Ratan Dhan Payo." DNA : Daily News & Analysis. Diligent Media Corporation Ltd. 2015. HighBeam Research. 23 Mar. 2018 via – via HighBeam (subscription required) .

• Syeda Eba (17 November 2017). "Expectations of fans scare me: Darshan Raval". Millennium Post. Retrieved 2024-07-11.

• Ano Patel (13 January 2017). "Darshan Rawal talks about his musical inspirations". Times of India. Retrieved 2024-07-11.

• And on, and on…

Admittedly much of the coverage was as a result of the PR surrounding the reality show but there is sustained mention of him following the end of the show, though not as much or in as great detail. The success he has had releasing him music on YouTube has been commented on in multiple articles in reliable sources and the use of his music in a couple of movies may qualify him under WP:MUSICBIO#10 depending on whether they are major movies or not. His song Tera Zikr seems to be a big hit possibly enough so to qualify him under WP:MUSICBIO#2 if anyone is familiar with Indian music charts. It was picked up by Sony and is described as "the biggest pop song of the year". The quote is from a PR piece so the description should be taken with a grain of salt but it is an indication that it probably charted if there are Indian charts. Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject meets General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for entertainers, celebrities and models (and has also done playback in several mainstream movies like Prem Ratan Dhan Payo and many more). HeyLetgoletgo (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: HeyLetgoletgo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep as Jbh as identified multiple reliable sources coverage that confirm he passes WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teitiria Utimawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Also nominating the following article for the same reason:[reply]

Keep both I don't agree that they fail notability. I think it's pedantic to state that even though a person was selected for, and attended, the Commonwealth Games, that they are non-notable because they didn't compete. The wording of the guideline says "participation in Com Games" but I think it's splitting hairs to say someone who was selected but didn't compete isn't notable. Also, both players won the Fijian national competition so they have achieved at that level. MurielMary (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only participation was showing up but not competing at an event on WP:BADMINTON, and that event requires a quarterfinals appearance to avoid having to pass WP:GNG, which this badmintoner unfortunately does not. SportingFlyer talk 05:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Failing nbadminton. Szzuk (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per all the reasons listed below plus G5 as the article was created by community-banned User:Krajoyn. Favonian (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican Civil War (1965)[edit]

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

This is a duplicate of the article Dominican Civil War with some material changed. Due to the edit history of that page, and the recent protection of the page, I believe that this page may have been created by a sockpuppet of Krajoyn.

At the very least, this should be made into a redirect to the original page. LynxTufts (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect – Agree the page should be deleted. A duplicate of Dominican Civil War. A redirect would not be out of line either. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - disruptive duplicate akin to content fork but. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect -- They are clearly duplicating each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A10. No need for redirect.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Spotify. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify Sessions[edit]

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

This is an unsourced and very incomplete list of artists who have recorded Spotify exclusives, and doesn't actually disambiguate any existing articles. Even if this were changed into an article about Spotify Sessions I think it could be condensed into a sentence or two and put in the main Spotify article:

Spotify has a number of exclusive recordings titled "Spotify Sessions", which are recorded specifically for the service by musical artists.^[1]

^ Porter, Jon; Langley, Hugh (September 9, 2016). "Which is the best music streaming service for you?". TechRadar. Future Publishing Limited Quay House. Retrieved March 23, 2018.

A (complete) list of artists who have recorded Spotify exclusives might arguably have reason to exist, although I personally don't think it would be useful. Jc86035 (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is a dab page. Are you proposing to turn it into an article.? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be an album here of course before that was moved out and then converted to a dab. If converting the dab into an article not sure whether sources should be added such as The New Music Industries: Disruption and Discovery p 123 etc. Or merge the list into the bottom of Spotify article. There are a number of options here. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: It doesn't function as a disambiguation page, since none of the musical works listed ~~exist~~^{have articles 14:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)}. I don't think there's enough content to warrant an article, or enough significance to warrant a list. Jc86035 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly do exist per WP:DABMENTION. If you mean they don't have articles, one article did exist, someone had created one of them and it was squatting there. After moving out it was blanked. @Certes: might be easier to simply add to articles. You can bet that they'll be added eventually. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi and Certes: If kept as a disambiguation page, I think the songs of each release would have to be listed and linked, since Spotify Sessions aren't particularly important releases and might not warrant mention in the artist's main article (especially given that many of those artists regularly do similar performances on TV etc. for promotion). Jc86035 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a set index article? If we keep it as a dab, we should really disqualify most entries because the linked article doesn't mention Spotify. There's not enough prose or references for an article. A SIA looks like a good format for this page. Certes (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Spotify This is looking more like a WP:NOTCATALOG of offerings as one of their products. They could archive a bunch of interviews of various artists and it would be the same result. Compare to The Essential which the bottom entry is a link to Category:The Essential listing for "Greatest hits albums part of Sony's The Essential series". Another alternative would be to use a format like Peel Sessions (disambiguation), but that assumes a number of the SIA links actually have content worth putting in the artist's article or discography. Compare to MTV Unplugged which had numerous artists perform on their show, but only a handful who recorded notable compilations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOG. Nothing about the "Sessions" as a whole or any of the individual collections is notable, so no need to even exist as a dab page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy Simulations[edit]

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

One good source but otherwise fails WP:NCORP. Nothing promising on a DuckDuckGo/Google search. talk to !dave 11:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional detail has been added to support notable achievements Rmjowett (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC) contribs) 12:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete – At this time. A company, just three years old, and though has some interesting contributions to the industry, has not quite risen to the level of Encyclopedic noteworthiness. Maybe in a few more years. Good luck to them.ShoesssS ^Talk 13:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The software represents a historic step in the way we deal with the energy and thermal constrains in the dawn of the electric vehicle era Rmjowett (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show how the company meets WP:NCORP. Read it in full. talk to !dave 14:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support Shoessss. I am unable to find further 3rd party information verifying that this represents notable technology. In the fullness of time, hopefully this information will surface into the public domain. Rmjowett (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Rmjowett, that's fair enough. It's up to you, but you can put the article out of its misery by placing ((db-g7)) on the top of it. Cheers, talk to !dave 16:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 5 refs - 3 primary, 1 doesn't mention them, 1 weak. New article already speedy deleted, COI tag, notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing isn't good as per Szzuk and difficult to find reliable sources in a search. SportingFlyer talk 05:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company - maybe WP:TOOSOON -time will tell. But not now, I'm afraid, if there aren't sufficient sources to demonstrate how our criteria are met. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Ayub Mirza[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails GNG. created by a SPA. --Saqib (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, 1 ref that is dead. Szzuk (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as it doesn't pass WP:GNG. M A A Z T A L K 13:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Kaushik[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability, and some right puffery. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, no significant coverage about the subject. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. MT Train^Talk 03:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of satisfying any relevant notability criteria. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anusha Rai[edit]

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

Unless I'm mistaken, she had no substantial role in any notable film. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She has done as lead in movie mahanubhavaru, new movie karshanam is getting ready for release. she has acted in vani rani famous tamil serial which was coming in sun network under balaji telifilems. please check this articles https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/sandalwood/070318/this-hudugi-is-raiding-high.html http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/south-masala/the-long-road-to-acting/articleshow/63275203.cms. whithout any notability how can it come in english paper? request you to not to delete the page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saveydude (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NACTOR. FITINDIA 20:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 18:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kastus Technologies[edit]

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

references are entire PR or otherwise unreliable. very spammy article, with extravagant claims. The highlighted award section is mostly trivial. Admitted coi editor. The combination of clear promotionalism and borderline notability at best is aclear reason for deletion DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Tough call between just stubbing the article and deleting. Has a decent amount of coverage, but most of it is semi-promotional or self-published in nature. I can imagine this corp being notable moving forward but at the moment, without further independent coverage I don't think it's fit to be kept right now. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems very WP:PROMO. -- Dane ^talk 18:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with OP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, no intellectually independent coverage, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. There's clearly sources. Some of the sources are in publications which are generally accepted as reliable, general-interest, and national scope. However, there's fundamental disagreement here over whether the coverage in those sources is significant enough to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Charming[edit]

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

Not notable, as this is an article created by its subject listing a banal lifetime of jobs, which, if notable, would mean millions of other people also need biographical pages. Angelofmurphy (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far short of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-made biography without enough reliable sources. 🖍S 09:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrayonS (talk • contribs)
Keep It appears from a gBooks search that she has a number of publications, including new concepts in her field (bartending), so that she meets WP:AUTHOR. (Using a paint mixer to mix Ramos Gin Fizzes...) Take a a look at the gBooks search, which turns up at least 9 books authored since 2002. A gNews search turns up many mentions in New Orleans-centered publications, but also mentions in outside publications such as: the Telegraph (UK); the Denver Post; and, among the New Orleans publications, she is profiled as mixologist of the year (2014) in New Orleans Magaine. The subject has edited her own article since its creation, but it was initially created in 2016 by an editor whose contributions indicate a broad interest in cocktails and beverages, definitely not a WP:SPA. It can certainly use some additional sources, bu overall this subject appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people) at this point. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THe Telegraph link says one sentence about her:"According to the research of New Orleans bartender and author Cheryl Charming and what I’ve been able to find". The Denver Post item is five very minor and fluffy sentences on making Sangria. The myneworleans.com source is good. So that is one source from all the ones you listed that is substantial.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additionally, she's considered by bar/mixologists as an expert in her field, and her books are used as historical references. In a Daily Beast article, a writer uses her books for research. "According to the research of New Orleans bartender and author Cheryl Charming .... Bergeronn (was born) in Thibodeaux, Louisiana, in 1889, and moved to New Orleans in 1907." There are also articles in local Midwestern newspapers about her book that details all the alcoholic beverages that appeared in American cinema, starting in 1917 with Charlie Chaplin. https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-the-vieux-carre-the-king-of-new-orleans-cocktails

Germanhexagon (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that link says about the article subject is "According to the research of New Orleans bartender and author Cheryl Charming..." that's it, 12 words. It's clearly a minor mention.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Delete let's have a look at those sources. The Telegraph is a single sentence: "Their bar, Bourbon “O”, boasts one of the city’s most charismatic head bartenders, Cheryl Charming, who has a wealth of cocktail knowledge and, if you’re lucky, a magic trick or two for you." The New Orleans Magazine is a decent source, but it mostly talks about the drinks in a fluffy way. She has indeed published books, but I don't think they constitute a significant, major or important contribution to the field.104.163.147.121 (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's notable within her field, as there are repeated mentions of her in the trade press (eg) for the on-trade/hospitality industry internationally. The other articles cites (Telegraph/New Orleans Magazine) then give her some coverage outside her specialism. The original nom was a bit strong - there are multiple sources indicating she's about as prominent as a bartender can get. That's not saying a great deal, admittedly. But I'd argue she scrapes in. Mattyjohn (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give above is a one-paragraph interview. Not in-depth, and not RS.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are professional trade press not reliable sources? Mattyjohn (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant discussion about her in secondary, independent sources. [17][18][19][20]. I've added those citations to the article. Passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary, independent sources. Passes WP:WRITER for "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and her work "has won significant critical attention." Passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" as she appears to be a local hero in New Orleans, and regularly discussed in their newspapers. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:entertainer says those things for "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities". That's a big stretch for a bartender.Being a local hero does not count on Wikipedia. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Being a local hero does not count on Wikipedia." What guideline says that? Wikipedia does not discriminate based on locality. If someone fulfills the requirements, that is evidence they are notable. It doesn't matter where they're from, or where their fans are. Additionally, that was only one of the reasons I stated. She's nationally recognized for her writing. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out the obvious: arguing "she appears to be a local hero in New Orleans" serves only to fluff up the candidate and not to help examine their notability.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it's evidence that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Lonehexagon (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the strongest source I can find is New Orleans Magazine : Mixologist of the Year]. Despite PROMO efforts by her friends, fans, or self, subject fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I am none of those things, but I know a little about the on-trade. However, I'm relatively new to the AfD process. Is it normal to cast aspersions on contributors to the discussion in this way? Mattyjohn (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to refer to the general atmosphere of promotion that certainly exists here. The first random quote I plucked from the article just now is "Charming's first bartending job was at a cabaret nightclub in Arkansas.[6] tending bar for five years aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship, Charming began working at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida in 1989. She was part of the opening team of Pleasure Island." Someone has to have very serious promotional intentions when they write like that. They have to actually make the effort to find the information and then write up sentences about her entirely routine jobs. Such efforts for inconsequential facts are a hallmark of promotionalism.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this AfD is to determine whether the topic is notable, not whether the article is well-written. However, an article can be tagged for including promotional language, and that helps encourage editors to fix the issues. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the coverage in The Times-Picayune? [21][22] It's a Pulitzer Prize winning publication that's been around since the 1800s. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think New Orleans Magazine Mixologist of the Year satisfies WP:GNG criteria. Local trade mag coverage doesn't cut it either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the coverage in The Times-Picayune? [23][24] It's a Pulitzer Prize winning publication that's been around since the 1800s. She receives significant discussion in both those links (in addition to many other sources in her article). The point of WP:GNG is to try to determine whether someone has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's been accomplished here. WP:GNG doesn't say anything about mixologists, so I feel like you're saying WP:DONTLIKEIT when you say "I don't think New Orleans Magazine Mixologist of the Year satisfies WP:GNG criteria." Additionally, I feel like that's a false flag because no one in this AfD has claimed she is notable purely because she was Mixologist of the Year. She's notable because of her writing and all the discussion about her and her work in reliable, secondary sources. The fact that so many people are interested in her is evidence that she is notable. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources found by Lonehexagon, passes WP:GNG. Nitpicking the awards does not take away the coverage. GuzzyG (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lonehexagon and per a search for news sources. Seems to meet WP:GNG as she is verified as being nationally known in bartending circles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. per the comment by Smmurphy (talk · contribs) who is now free to do what they recommended below. —SpacemanSpiff 10:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayaditya I[edit]

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

This article confuses between Chalukya dynasty and Shilaharas of Maharashtra Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator is correct. This page should more or less be reverted to here, and a hatnote to Shilahara for information about the other Vijayaditya added. I would make this change, but I want to wait until someone else checks and confirms. Note that the two figures lived 300 years apart. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in principle. This seems to be about the ruler of a substantial part of India. If someone has messed it up, the solution is to edit out the rubbish or split. I do not know the subject and cannot say more. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Fujieda MYFC season[edit]

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

Fujieda MYFC compete in Japan Football League in 2013 season. But Japan Football League is not fully-professional league. So, I don't think this article is notability. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can it remain? Fujieda MYFC compete in the J3 League now so can be good to look back at previous seasons before they joined the J3? Cam Melling (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NSEASONS. The JFL isn't even on the list of fully professional leagues. Jay eyem (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD fixed. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NSEASONS, not played in a top professional league(not fully). Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Proposer) --Gonta-Kun (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Giant Snowman 08:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an inherently non-notable subject, but no clear indication this season satisfies GNG. Club not competing in a top professional league, so not presumed notable per WP:NSEASONS. No problem with recreation if sources can be found to show this season in the club's history generated sufficient significant non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk)

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 10:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matwali Mira[edit]

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

Not a single review or other in-depth treatment to be found. There may be some in Hindi, which I'm not going to be able to uncover; absent these, seems to fail WP:NFILM. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Fails WP:N. Harsh Rathod 17:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here in FilmIndia (1945) the interviewer talks of a future film called 'Matwali Mira'. IMDB has an entry for 'Matwali Meera' 1947. However I think these may be the result of ambiguation with the Tamil film 'Meera' from 1947. Not significant or insightful mentions at any rate. There is an index mention of 'Matwali Mira' here in the 'Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema' (1999) but I get the impression that is another name for a decades later film called 'Meerabai'. Nothing to establish notability basically. Cesdeva (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho Horsemen[edit]

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

Proposed local sports team. Middling routine coverage insufficient to meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Jack Frost (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SUSTAINED, WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS for their single source coverage of their announcement. As they do not even have a league (and the owner has been making various social media posts for over a year), too WP:NOTCRYSTAL to presume any notability. I actually thought this was PROD worthy under those circumstances. Yosemiter (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Here is more proof they are going to get started. You don't need a crystal ball. It has gotten coverage. No single coverage here. ^[1] NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NostalgiaBuff97501: That is the same press release from a different local media source,both from their Jan 30, 2018, announcement. Thus, still fails WP:SUSTAINED as it only has the single moment of press (WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS). Yosemiter (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you wonder why many people believe that Wikipedia is "NOT a credible source of information". If "single sources" are not enough proof, then why have Wikipedia? NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NostalgiaBuff97501: It is not about proof, it is about notability and verifiabilty, of which the general notability guideline is rather straightforward: "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Note the plural use of "sources". Further explained in the GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. ... Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." In this case the only source is the initial announcement, that has been reprinted twice on the same day for the same purpose. Per WP:NOTNEWS#2: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Hence why merely announcing intentions to local media, and receiving no further coverage, is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter], fair enough. Yet, to others, all of the guidelines are "excuses to delete". NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I appreciate the enthusiasm of the article creator! The notability standards cited above just have not been met at this time, at least not nearly enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Perhaps try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Svane[edit]

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

Does not even meet basic requirements of WP:BIO, only one secondary source - No article covering the person, merely a list of participants. No exceptional or notable achievements LinguistManiac (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grandmasters are notable by virtue of being grandmasters. See a recent AfD regarding this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Tang, and the discussion at WT:CHESS#Notability of chess players. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reaching Grandmaster level is indeed an "exceptional or notable achievement" and longstanding consensus is that Grandmasters are notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hrodvarsson and Pawnkingthree. Googling "rasmus svane schach" brings up plenty of significant coverage. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with previous voters, GM's are notable; also more interesting sources have been added to the article since this AfD was filed. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I strongly disagree that merely being a grandmaster makes one notable; reliable coverage in secondary sources is what makes one notable. In this case, there appears to be adequate German language sourcing for this individual to pass the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The result was redirect to Italophilia. Sandstein 10:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italophile[edit]

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

A rather baffling content fork of Italophilia. Should be turned into a redirect to same. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The only additional content is the "post 1945" section which is of dubious quality and sourcing. The rest is basically a summary of the other page. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Italophilia, content fork. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The result was no consensus. There are majority of Keep comments, but as many are WP:SHESNOTABLE I have closed this as No Consensus. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Kufrin[edit]

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

A recent reality show winner does not totally meet with the standards of WP:BIO and some of links don't meet with WP:EXTERNALLINKS policy. The article shows with social media and webhosting sites like WP:NOTINSTAGRAM and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Prefer to redirect with The Bachelorette (season 14) article. ApprenticeFan work 10:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has no notability outside of the events of the show, so a redirect and merge of any content that should be kept is appropriate. Though I believe this is The Bachelor, not the Bachelorette. Richard Ye^talk 10:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 13:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page can be improve by other editors. In addition,WP:NOTINSTAGRAM and WP:NOTLINKEDIN have been removed. Why do other previous bachelorettes have their own pages then such as Rachel Lindsay, Kaitlyn Bristowe, Andi Dorfman? Lbtocth (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Obviously the winner of the Bachelor is notable. There are literally thousands of articles in the press about this woman. [25], [26], [27]. She's in the New York Times, for goodness sake. We don't delete articles because they have ridiculous links. Edit the article, don't bring it to AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page should definitely be kept because of precedence of other Bachelorette stars having their own page (as mentioned in the above comment). Yes, the page can be improved, but since it's so new, it will be improved over time. --Footballplayr69 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Former bachelorettes did not get their own articles until their seasons premiered and more information about them became available. :::(talk) 09:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment More information? There are already hundreds of article in any news search.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, Andi Dorfman's existed page BEFORE her season premiere. In addition, there a lot of articles coverage (reliable source) on Kufrin currently. Lbtocth (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do wish shows like this did not exist (setting aside Unreal), but she is certainly notable. I dare say it would not be difficult to find a hundred good sources, so why is this here again?104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for voters who voted for keep, as a nominator, I chose to redirect the page to The Bachelor (season 22) is more likely or support for deleting the article. If the editors will be getting redirected to The Bachelorette (season 14) that would make too early before the airing, but it is in in-production. Other Bachelorette leads have no significant notability issues. ApprenticeFan work 12:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment What about The Bachelor Brad Womack? Who barely have anything on his page. What does he even have a page that only have a sentence? In addition, please do explain why Kufrin isn't notable enough. She won The Bachelor, then she got dumped on camera without anyone telling her before. And she became The Bachelorette.Lbtocth (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think in due time this article can be improved. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for multiple shows, and has received significant media coverage. --Volvlogia (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though it needs improvement, she was part of a major reality show and has announced to be the focus of the next show. There is press coverage talking about her specifically. Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Bachelor (season 22). Any notability derives therefrom. Sandstein 12:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the televised surprise breakup made national news - she became the only winner that wound up actually not winning. She's already notable enough, so WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply for the upcoming show, but that will only add to more info being added and greater notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEEVENT, garden variety game show winner. The majority of the litany of "keep" votes above fail to actually advance a reason why the article she should be kept, or why this is not a case of WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment She is notable for multiple shows. The "delete" and "merge" votes fail to explain why is she not notable enough.Lbtocth 17:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge to The Bachelor (season 22). GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has has significant roles in multiple television shows, Winner in The Bachelor (season 22) and Lead in The Bachelorette (season 14), therefore is an instance of WP:Celebrity. -- Mypurplelightsaber (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Nair[edit]

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

I came across an enquiry at the help desk

"Hello, fairly new here and have come across an article whose subject I think is insufficiently notable. It's this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Nair. How can I mark it up as such? Thanks UKCW — User:UKComedyWikis (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

I concur this page is promotional without really showing WP:NMUSIC for the artist yet. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Criteria for musicians and ensembles (section 1) are met with the person - Nair is currently a participant in ITV - The Voice competition, though the article is not updated with the links. The person (Nair) is in Knockout stages and if she progresses through next round - there will be just one round before the finals. According to print and online media, she is a potential finalist. With respect to Section 1 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles - all the national news media has stories/articles on Nair and ITV has featured her twice already and constantly posts about her on ITV social channels.

Simonekent (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with this! User:UKComedyWikis —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, UKComedyWikis, Legacypac did either of you do a WP:BEFORE search? Neither of you mention having done one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that being a finalist in the Voice does not meet WP:NMUSIC and unless she reaches the final and wins first, second or third place, that is not an indication of notability. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ~~Being one of the last four (apparently there are four finalists) is in my view a claim to notability. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not citing just The Sun, but multiple independent sources for articles. Regarding following the rules I understand your concern - Section 9 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles - Winning, runnerup or 3rd place. I agree to that, but I'm referring to Section 1 - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician , Section 10 - Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show and Section 12 - Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network Simonekent (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Simonekent. There are is quite sufficient coverage from multiple reliable news sources, not all of it in connection with her appearances on The Voice to pass WP:NMUSIC criterion 1. Fairly clear-cut, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC) @Simonekent: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 and 10 and has significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article sourcing has been improved greatly and I went through and removed the fluff. This person has received plenty of significant coverage from secondary sources as a semifinalist in a popular competition, and she also received some significant coverage about her musical talents when she was younger. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Ganguzza[edit]

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

film producer, does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. Very little reliable source coverage of her and films do not seem to be notable. Rusf10 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 5 refs - 2 x imdb, 1 x 404, 1 x unsearchable, 1 x weak. Szzuk (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not to suggest that she is anything but great at what she does, or that there is anything wrong with her or her creative output. But there just don't seem to be enough sources that meet our benchmark that are about her, that are substantial, and in reliable third party sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The result was redirect to Diving as a plausible search term. I added a sentence at Diving#Non-competitive diving but anyone can edit or move it elsewhere as desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belly flop[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Belly flop has incoming links from articles (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Belly_flop), and people will look it up, so some sort of article is needed here, or a visible redirect to wikt:belly flop, not merely an unhelpful blank-wall "there is no such article" screen. (The bellyflop is an undesired way of entering the water in diving (not scuba). In it, the body enters the water horizontally or nearly so, belly down. Sometimes something is said to bellyflop, meaning that it failed.) Google search for "belly flop" OR bellyflop OR bellyflopped found "About 795,000 results" and many images. And see Talk:Belly flop. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Bellyflop and belly flop to Diving#Entry or Diving#Non-competitive diving and add a sentence about it. I am leaning towards the former as accidental bellyflops can occur in professional diving as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just procedurally, shouldn't this be at RfD not AfD? Not worth changing venues over. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Viable search term. Szzuk (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Potential search term and redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The result was redirect to [The Documentary]. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Doscher[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, either WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. The article claims he co-starred in the film Remedy. However, I doubt he had a major role in the film because his name is not even on the DVD boxcover. I don't see any reliable source coverage to support his notability. Rusf10 (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4Chosen: The Documentary. No evidence of independent notability aside from the documentary, which seems to be the only thing that has attracted coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to XL (programming language) and keep Christophe de Dinechin. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concept programming[edit]

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

This article describes a supposed computer programming paradigm that is not one of the well-known programming paradigms, and which has no citations to the computer science or software engineering literature, neither journal paper nor conference proceedings (the only "citation" is to an opinion piece in a technical blog). The only use of this so-called paradigm described in the article is by a one-person programming language (XL) by the same author (also without citations to the computer science literature). I have searched for citations in the scientific literature and there are none; also the article has been tagged for not providing citations since March 2014.

This article violates both original research and notability wikipedia polices. Moreover, it is listed on the main "programming paradigm" template, where it is listed amongst genuine well-known paradigms and so will mislead computer science students who are likely to read it. Axiarchist (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

very weak overturn to merge to XL (programming language) or Christophe de Dinechin. No objection to delete. Per WP:MULTIAFD should we also be considering XL (programming language) (possible dab?) and Christophe de Dinechin ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the additional articles also violate original research and notability guidelines. Therefore, I am also nominating the following related pages because XL (programming language) is a single author project with no citations to the computer science or software engineering literature, despite searches, and the author's article "Christophe de Dinechin" is non-notable, with the main claims being the non-notable XL and concept programming articles:

   :XL (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Christophe de Dinechin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep Christophe de Dinechin and weak merge for XL The Alpha Waves games was one of the first 3D Atari home games, that influenced several others including Alone in the Dark. scope_creep (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC several

I think there should be with a long career several other instances of notabilty. I cant see anything about XL apart from trivial mentions. scope_creep (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that three articles are now nominated for deletion herein: Concept programming, XL (programming language) and Christophe de Dinechin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Christophe de Dinechin and merge XL (programming language) for reasons stated above, Christophe de Dinechin's solid career is notable; while in my experience little-known paradigms, theories etc. tend to only have sources from one author, which appears to be the case here, and that doesn't make for a good article on its own when it could easily be merged. Nanophosis (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft redirect to wikt:commlink. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comlink[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no indication of notability, possible OR. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary as a WP:DICDEF._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It isn't in dictionary.com so I'm not certain it is a real word, nor does this look like a delete. I thought about a merge to communication link, that redirects to Datalink. It could probably merge to Transceiver. Szzuk (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Redirect to Wiktionary (specifically, wikt:comlink or wikt:commlink) per WP:POINTWIKT. The title is searched for, has a relevant entry in Wiktionary, does not have a viable target for redirection here, and the title doesn't have much scope (largely science fiction oriented, so I do not think redirecting to transceiver would be appropriate). Therefore, I come to the conclusion that a soft redirect may be appropriate (per the steps outlined in Template:Wiktionary redirect). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Naseem[edit]

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

fails to meet GNG. Saqib (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The article had to be speedy deleted. Extremely promotional. I didn't find any references that may justify passing WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as I couldn't find a single WP:RS. I couldn't really find anything RS or not. I did notice that his Cyptocurrency [28] is 10 days from launching an ICO which makes this doubly promotional. Theredproject (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Swee Yong[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Many of the refs are articles that he has written. Several others are quotes from him - possibly press releases? Nothing here that is independent and reliable about him. This reads much more like an advertisment for his books. Apparently he was part of a team that sysnthesised a novel rutheium pyridine complex but that just helps get a Ph.D , not notability, even if it is the same person. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has been cited by several others ^[2]^[3]. Perhaps this might shed some light on his notability within Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhitmanx1 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Indoor Football team coming to Treasure Valley, 6 On Your Side YouTube, January 30, 2018
^ http://www.storm.sg/property-market-investment-ku-swee-yong/
^ http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/hdb-supply-too-cool-too-hot-or-just-right

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject and article clearly seems to be promotional , since ku doesn’t seem to have enough reliable source to be eligible to get verified. This article clearly meets the deletion criteria.HeyLetgoletgo (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable as either a "property analyst" or a "media personality". Bio spam on a nn individual; likely a COI-produced piece. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability in Pembrokeshire[edit]

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

NOTE: This is one of a group of seven very similar articles about "sustainability" in Welsh counties, several of them recently created. There are no "Sustainability in..." articles for any counties anywhere other than Wales, suggesting some kind of coordinated project. For discussions about the others see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability in Anglesey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability in monmouthshire [sic]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTESSAY. Adam9007 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. This looks agenda-driven and, together with the now-blocked user name suggests that it' written on behalf of the council. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay with refs that support the essay. New article, new editor. Nothing to save. Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All necessary info is on Pembrokeshire's own page. Not a very active user (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a personal essay reflecting its author's views, and at worst a use of Wikipedia to promote the work of Pembrokeshire county council. Also, totally parochial. We do not have separate articles on general topics such as "sustainability" for each county or equivalent local government area in the world, nor should we. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Association of Biological Psychiatry[edit]

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

This article fails WP:CORP. WP:BEFORE turned up few sources as well (Just two pages of results for English title, Brazilian title turned up more, but they did not appear reliable or secondary to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not verifiably exist. It may have transiently existed, driven by Carlos R. Hojai, and then fizzled, or more likely never got airborne. The official website rental has expired. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability in monmouthshire[edit]

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

NOTE: This is one of a group of seven very similar articles about "sustainability" in Welsh counties, several of them recently created. There are no "Sustainability in..." articles for any counties anywhere other than Wales, suggesting some kind of coordinated project. For discussions about the others see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability in Anglesey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability in Pembrokeshire. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTESSAY. Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay on sustainability in a small Welsh county with population 92,000. New article, new editor. Refs which support the essay. Szzuk (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a personal essay reflecting its author's views, and at worst a use of Wikipedia to promote the work of Monmouthshire county council. Also, totally parochial. We do not have separate articles on general topics such as "sustainability" for each county or equivalent local government area in the world, nor should we. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per A7. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Griffith[edit]

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

Unremarkable person. The only source is his own website. Natureium (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudup[edit]

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

No notability. Product one of many alsorans. Almost zero pageviews for article. No new entries in google search in last month. No independent source in article. sirlanz 00:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Only mentioned in passing. This was the only WP:RS I could find. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isse Musse[edit]

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

A Google search reveals nothing that establishes notability. Adam9007 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is essentially an unoriginal rewording of the already existing Habr Awal article. The article proposed for deletion refers to a subclan which falls under the Habr Awal clan and it is already covered extensively in the Habr Awal article. There is no need for a repetitive article of this nature which doesn't contribute any original research, as if it did merging the two articles may have been more appropriate.Linkjan2014 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails V. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable sources that would enable this to meet the General Notability Guideline. In fact, this whole article appears to be an attempt at a vanity project. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]