< 29 March	31 March >

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

The result was delete by consensus as an essay. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Body Positive Movement[edit]

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

Something needs to be done about this. The article seems to have been a class assignment, and as a result--in typical fashion--it turned into an essay full of SYNTH and OR. I started cleaning out some of the unrelated material, but what will be left? We can't have an article on a vague, general term, and as it turns out, underneath this article, deep in its history, it was always an essay--see this. So, while it is clear that there are various things going on in the world that are related to the body and its image as portrayed in media, health, and entertainment, this article is not the way to get at that for Wikipedia's purposes. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SYNTH issues are almost unfixable for a general essay topic like this one. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article is notable because the movement is also about bodyshaming which is really present nowadays on social media and in the real life. People who are going through this have to know that there is a movement advocating acceptation of their bodies. And the fact that we have famous models like Ashley Graham and Iskra Lawrence and many others personalities as poet and author make the article more notable.Irma2403 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable topic yes, but there is nothing to salvage from this essay. The only alternative would be to stub it. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. – Craig Davison (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Transit fleet roster[edit]

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

Long list of busfan trivia. Poorly sourced original research. WP:NOTFANSITE WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:ATD, I think at least some of the information can be summarised and merged into Guelph Transit. The main article doesn't have any information about the fleet. At least the material in this page could be used and a short paragraph added with citations.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with other recent articles of this type that came up for AFD and got deleted, we are not interested in cataloguing the exact make and model of every individual bus in a city's public transit fleet. It's not important information that an encyclopedia needs to retain, it's not even interesting information to anyone outside of a small clique of bus-spotters, it changes as old brokedown buses are taken out of service and new ones are purchased and deployed, and it's not reliably sourceable anywhere but the transit agency's own self-published content. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I agree that summary information about the bus fleet is appropriate for the main article, this roster is unsourced, and I would not be in favour of merging unsourced information. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in U.S population[edit]

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

It’s an essay. The article reads as though it were a research paper rather than an encyclopedic entry. It has very few sources, most of which (to my knowledge) only support the statistics, which would classify as original research. This is an okay topic to write about, and I think a WP:HEY is possible. _{Vermont | reply here} 21:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's main contributor states on their user page that they are a student editor, explaining the article looking more like a research paper than an encyclopaedic entry. StewdioMACK (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the instructor's talk page informing them. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10, a rambling essay that adds nothing to Demography of the United States. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is already Demography of the United States which would contain any information on altering population levels. It's fairly active as well, so it might be worth the individual considering working/talking there. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clickbaity fork. The title (headline, as you will) has little to do with the content, which is essentially unsourced synthesis. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Forsch[edit]

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

Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources. Can find sources that mention his work but nothing is substantial enough for WP:BIO. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete a thorough search turned up no RS. Fails GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any RS, plus SPA creator's username implies COI: Special:Contributions/Laurenforsch Theredproject (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Sweder[edit]

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

No evidence of notability under either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Only claim for notability is as assistant coach on team that won NCAA Division II championship backed by a reference that does not name the subject. Tagged for citations since 2010 with no substantial improvement. Searches find mostly false positives and mirrors. The only actual citable sources found in WP:BEFORE are bare directory-type listings (e.g.,Tufts player profile or assistant coach profile on a high-school travel team). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little if any coverage of the subject in RS. Per nom, fails GNG and SPORTBASIC. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did try to improve this article which formerly implied he was the coach of a championship winning side but I found he was only the assistant coach so it was corrected. Agree does not pass WP:GNG or any WP:SNGs Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per nom. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief History of Equations[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is... really just a personal essay spanning multiple topics. Not sure there's a particularly plausible redirect in there anywhere. GMG ^talk 19:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's mostly a paraphrase (occasionally close) of the references cited, and adds nothing to History of physics. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Wikipedia is not a publisher of personal essays. Anything substantial that this article could cover would likely be better suited to history of physics. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Also, the title is misleading, as suggesting wrongly that it is about the history of Theory of equations. D.Lazard (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This is a random collection of some important physics equations, not an encyclopaedic article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this is an essay which Wikipedia is not a collection of. -- Dane ^talk 03:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As all above.--MaoGo (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NOT and SYNTH. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a clearly defined article topic appropriate for wikipedia (and extremely low quality in any case). Mathchecker (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ESSAY concerns. fork of List of equations and History of mathematics.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrivano i dollari![edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM - nothing in the article establishes notability. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has 2 reliable sources book references. As it has a notable director and cast and a theatrical release it is hard to imagine that it was not reviewed in reliable sources but as it was released in 1957 those reviews are not on the internet or very hard to find Atlantic306 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have just found one reliable newspaper review that is quoted in the Italian wikipedia article here. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katten Muchin Rosenman[edit]

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

A legal firm with no evidence of notability. The first ref is self written and others show it is a nice place to work according to one web-site. A minor controversy is hardly a notable event and then nothing that demonstrates notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep This is the merger of two firms that have WP articles. They are listed on many best of lists.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That something else exists is not an indicator of notability. It is equally possible that the other two firms also lack notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a large, prominent law firm whose activities have received substantial coverage over the years. In addition to the items already mentioned, this firm was the subject of substantial coverage for its involvement in a well-publicized race discrimination lawsuit that led to a controversial $2.5 million jury verdict, followed by an also controversial 2-1 reversal by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and a widely-reviewed book about all of this entitled The Good Black. A few examples of coverage (lots more can be seen in the usual searches): New York Times [1], Harvard Law Review [2], Chicago Tribune [3], Washington Post [4][5]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here are a couple of articles about the firm's representation of Michael Jackson and other entertainment figures. Chicago Tribune [6], Los Angeles Daily Journal [7]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PragmaDev Studio[edit]

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

No evidence of notabilty. No references, and searches reveal nothing reliable and indepedent that speaks to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see thirteen references in further reading, most of which were discussed in the previous AfD (which I initiated) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Time Developer Studio. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have re-organized the article and added references. Now there are 18 references, mostly scientific publications presented during recognized international conferences where the papers are reviewed by their peers. I hope this demonstrates the notability, if so please consider removing the notices. --Manu31415 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per Walter Görlitz and Manu31415. The coverage available in books and articles satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Passes GNG per sources already in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rialto Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no-notable public access station Rusf10 (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the article does have some rs coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 09:59, 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 03:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a directory listing at best; does not meet WP:NORG. There's also an odd para about a 3rd party company, so one wonders about the promotional purpose of this:

"Rialto Network is powered by the Tightrope Media Systems. Tightrope Media Systems is a digital media company that develops broadcast solutions for multiple platforms including television, over-the-top content, Internet streaming, and mobile devices"!

No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability; fails WP:ORGCRITE, and WP:BCAST not being a national or regional cable channel. Three references (one error 404) and a primary source does not reach the level of "verifiably through reliable sources". Local station per the subjects website: "Rialto Community Network is a community development project based in Rialto area of Dublin. We work to address poverty disadvantage and social exclusion in this area of South West Dublin City.". Otr500 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel Lester Cooperative House[edit]

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

No notable house that lacks any quality to be on encyclopedia. Another remnant of pre-notability period. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to section on this house in Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan, which could be expanded slightly. Outright "Keep" would also be a perfectly decent outcome. We should seek wp:ATD alternatives to deletion, to avoid losing credit to contributors, etc., for when separate article is more obviously justified by more sources being available. Would-be AFD nominators should take note, should consider making merger proposals rather than starting AFDs. Unless running up some kind of deletion score is their goal.

What the heck is meant by "pre-notability period"? Seems like something derogatory is meant, out of some kind of recentism bias? But any topic once notable, is always notable. --Doncram (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a house with 15 residents hardly rates an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why not merge to the list-article which already mentions it. It is mention-worthy...because it is mentioned. We are supposed to find wp:ATD alternatives to deletion where possible, as here. --Doncram (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no encyclopedic information to be merged. That the house serves vegan meals and that the basement is used for food storage is drivel that does not belong here. While Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan seems like a notable subject, most of the information on individual houses don't belong in that article - WP is not a directory of all information. At most a redirect. MB 02:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glossary of video game terms#H. Sandstein 06:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Head swap[edit]

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

Non-notable video game term, basically just a redux of the TV Tropes article of the same name and essentially WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of video game terms - No entry there on head swap yet, but someone can edit in a couple sentences there no problem, sticking to a straight definition rather than the examplecruft which populates the article as it is now. I haven't seen the sort of coverage on head swaps that would justify giving the term its own article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it REALLY have an entry there though? I can't find anything supporting the article's assertion that it's "famous" - or even a well known term. Reliable sources hardly mention it, and it's certainly not of interest to your typical gamer. It seems like minutia that doesn't need a mention on Wikipedia and is more fit for TV Tropes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not famous, hence why I don't support it having its own article. Whether it's of interest to readers... I dunno. I tried running site-specific searches for GameSpot and IGN using Goodsearch and came up with zero uses of the phrase. On the other hand, it was most likely at the height of its usage in the pre-internet era. So again, I dunno. I was hoping someone else would have thoughts on this.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a notification at Talk:Glossary of video game terms since I suggested a new entry to that article above, and we could really use more respondents here anyway.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of video game terms as per Martin IIIa. The article could actually build up to be notable if it covered both this and the increasing usage of use of a real person's head over another - which used to be limited to professional CGI. Putting that aside, I certainly would say there is enough for a couple of of lines in the List. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Torre di Roccabruna[edit]

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

Nominating this for deletion as I couldn't find a CSD criteria for it. No references, does not appear to be notable in any way. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references to speak of, and I couldn't find any with a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer talk 05:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are actually two Roccabruna towers. The one in Siena described in the article and in its Italian homologue(mentioned a.o. in [8], [9], [10]). The other, arguably more notable, is part of the Hadrian Villa complex in Tivoli near Rome ([11], [12], [13], [14] and many more). 37.117.118.138 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I found an Engish source and linked the article to its Italian homologue. Nowadays it's not the most important building of Siena, but imho it has its own history and the article can be of some interest.--Pampuco (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Pampuco that it's not the most important building in Siena, but it's quite notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frak (expletive)[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable dicdef, the rest is WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agreed with the OR concern so I have undertaken a small cleanup. What's left is not substantial, yet I can see many references to this terminology dating back quite some time (google news of the archives returns relevant results). I think it's notable in a niche sense (particularly in the video game industry or certain television series) and I am seeing enough on searches that seems to suggest it has a usage history. Page views seem fairly modest too (i.e. it doesn't seem to be that obscure). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much everything in the "Other uses" section, and the 2nd paragraph of the lede is WP:SYNTH and should be removed. The last sentence of the lede is trivia also and shouldn't be in the article. There is no evidence that those uses of "Frak" are linked to the Battlestar Galactica one. They could very well have arisen independently of one another. "Etymology" is the only real content in the article worth keeping and that's small enough that it doesn't need its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the "other uses" section is now that bad. I have no personal experience with the term or really care too much if it gets deleted or not, hence why I did a search including archive news/sources which did return relevant results over a reasonable period of time. My own judgement was based on those search results, coupled with the consistent page views and a potential for someone who cares to develop the article to do so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Narratology. Any merging etc. is an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Story and Discourse[edit]

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

Structured as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. No single redirect target; perhaps some of this could be included on Narratology. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There might be a case for splitting this article into two articles, one about 'story' and the other about 'discourse'. But that is not something that automatically happens when we have an article about two closely related things, because such articles are permissible under the wording of the introduction to N. "No single redirect target" is an argument for a history merge without redirect. That is not technically a deletion. Further, when we have a choice of targets, we can pick the most likely, rather than not have a redirect. "Essay" is an argument for a rewrite, or for a transwiki to Wikiversity, where essays are permitted. A rewrite is preferable when the topic is notable and there is not another article specifically about that topic. Since there seems to be a lot of coverage, and I don't see why any content problems can't be fixed by editing, I'm not satisfied that there is a case for outright deletion. James500 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems like the issues may be surmountable, but this topic is beyond my expertise. That said, the topic sounds to me similar to Fabula and syuzhet, or Plot (narrative). I wonder if some merging is in order – or if not, at least some cross-linking. Cnilep (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge, it does look like a WP:NOTESSAY, it is a sub section of narratology but much longer and more detailed than that article. There are references so a merge or delete is OK. Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Any copyvios can (must, of course) be revedeleted, but there is no consensus at this point to delete the artice on either copyright or notability grounds. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elisakh Hagia[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable performer from paid editor User:Rusboot. Fair chunks of this are a copyvio of http://elisakhagia.com/about/, but not quite enough to WP:G12 the entire article. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO and also WP:TOOSOON as only 10 years old which is a bit problematic concerning the amount of vandalism such articles attract. Most probably will be notable but suggest waiting at least a couple of years and preferably having an unaffiliated editor write it Atlantic306 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even given the original sourcing of the article, she seems to easily pass WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, a quick search provides many more possible citations. I have improved the article greatly and added additional sources. She's performed internationally in America, Indonesia and Malaysia. She has collaborated and released songs and music videos with notable rappers (including Silentó and Zay Hilfigerrr), been honored by the country of Indonesia, and two of her songs have been streamed over 30 million times each on SoundCloud. She has performed on Kompas TV, and her performances in Electric Run Malaysia and Urban Street Jam were televised nationally in their countries. Passes WP:MUSIC for "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 or ensemble itself" and "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." I feel she also passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" as she's been featured in several major music festivals and on TV. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in English sources seems lacking and mostly PR fluff, but Indonesian sources seem to be more promising and do seem to be significant. And with the performances mentioned by Lonehexagon, it appears that she passes our notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although leaning Keep, as the delete votes were WP:ATADD; however, the commentary was policy based, to some degree. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joycelyn O'Brien[edit]

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

Non notable actor. WP:NACTOR. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines DocumentError (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~No sources and~~ fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article and this discussion again, I continue to believe this to fail WP:GNG. I tend to agree with Soetermans that she likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR either. -- Dane ^talk 03:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I've improved the article to better demonstrate her notability. I would like to remind the nominator of this article, and the other users who have voted delete so far, that according to WP:BEFORE, before nominating an article for AfD, you have a responsibility to "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" and also to "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability." A quick Google search shows this actress has appeared in Broadway plays, appeared in multiple movies, appeared in episodes of four major television series, and starred in more than a half dozen made-for-TV movies. She easily passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and this article should definitely be kept. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you, @Lonehexagon, that you do not need to remind experienced editors like @Dane, Deathlibrarian, and DocumentError: and myself about Wikipedia's guidelines. Why are you assuming to I didn't take the time to check O'Brien's notability? I did, and I'm not convinced that she passes WP:NACTOR, because it says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", italics my emphasis. "Significant", "multiple" and "notable". A couple of guest appearances on TV shows, a handful of run-of-the-mill made-for-TV movies in which she did not receive top-billing (check IMDb), and her work on Oscar (see IMDb cast list, she's pretty far down) does not prove notability. That you have a different reading of WP:NACTOR is fine, but it does not automatically mean everyone agrees with you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per additional content and sources added to the article later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The referenced articles are about the subject rather than incidental mentions, and in significant sources: United Press International and Los Angeles Times. Passes GNG. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, we still need several, reliable sources. A piece by the LA Times where O'Brien describes her experiences on one film does not establish notability for herself. See also my comment above. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is your prerogative to disagree but my position is unchanged. To me there is no room for doubt: if the WP:GNG is met then the subject is notable, and it is clear that it is met; we have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": two non-trivial articles about the subject in separate, reliable, non-primary sources. WP:NACTOR, which you discuss above, is a supplementary guideline for when the WP:BASIC notability guidelines are not met. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Soetermans, I appreciate your comments, but like Dorsetonian my position is unchanged. I believe she passes WP:ACTOR for appearing in a Broadway production, appearing as named roles in movies, and making 3 significant appearances with named roles in major television shows. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have had another look at the article, and my vote to delete, remains unchanged. She has appeared in a few plays, and played some small roles in TV, but nothing major, and the articles don't discuss here in detail. Possbly a case of TOOSOON, and when she has established herself more, there may be more to make her notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M. T. M. Iqbal[edit]

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

Being a deputy mayor doesn't bring inherent notability under WP:NPOL. Insufficient coverage to justify WP:BASIC. Obi2canibe (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politican, and no covereage to meet WP:GNG. His office is long way below WP:NPOL threshold completely. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being deputy mayor of a city is not an automatic WP:NPOL freebie that entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article just because one source can be added as cursory verification that he exists. It might be enough if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG, but it's not an inclusion freebie and the sourcing here is nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I’ve searched and at best I can only find mentions in passing, which establish he exists but nothing more. Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Dan arndt (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. _{Vermont | reply here} 09:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video game curse[edit]

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

Per discussion here there seems to be a general consensus that this article is about a buzzword that doesn't really exist. Clickbait articles might call it a curse, but there is not really a "curse" in the vein of Curse of the pharaohs. Any information can be added to Video game film without needing a separate article. Redirecting the title would also be unsuitable as it is confusing to readers. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the title alone, I wasn't sure if the author meant the Madden Curse, or the one about linking every third console to a manufacturer's downfall [15]. It was neither! :( Moving this (back) into draft space, and encompassing all "curses" may be the best shot the author has to see if its even possible to satisfy both comprehensiveness and reliability. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Uncommon buzzword that's better suited for a merger or just outright deletion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read a fair bit about video game films and never heard this term before. The section "Theories on causes" has some good content assuming that the sourcing is good and genuinely supports the claims (I haven't looked that deeply into it), and that particular content could be moved to Video game film as suggested by nom, but an actual merge wouldn't be a good idea since the phrase "Video game curse" is vague enough to be confusing. An article at that location would have to be a disambiguation page. Moving the existing article to a different name wouldn't help either, since the essential subject - the idea that video game films are always bad - doesn't seem notable enough to merit an article separate from Video game film.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No suitable redirect target. Please however notice this: Curse (video game). wumbolo ^^^ 19:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Salam (party)[edit]

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

Speedy is declined so bringing it up here.. the organisation does not appear to meet basic GNG and even has not non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately.

For what its worth, only a couple of the sections of the International Marxist Tendency are notable entities, such as Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992). Saqib (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No hits in media-sources, books and/or scholarly sources.I strongly doubt that the party is even remotely significant/visible in Pakistan.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sure if such a party even exists. --Spasage (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom nom nom. M A A Z T A L K 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nickel titanium. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flexon[edit]

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

No indpendent coverage for the brands. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, it is a brand name for Nickel titanium. Szzuk (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickel titanium - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzan Miah[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, some small parts here and there, but basically no depth of coverage whatsoever, just the most passing of mentions in credits. These all look a lot like minor bit parts, and/or appearances as unnamed characters. Maybe in a few years, but not now. GMG ^talk 16:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not sufficiently notable at this time. Orenburg1 (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like it could just be WP:TOOSOON, but not notable at the time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There were policy-based arguments on both sides, yet neither indicating that the community demands the deletion of this particular article (or the converse, for that matter). (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuka Nagano[edit]

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

An IP dePRODed this article and add this [16], but stil fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Pinging PROD nominator Gonta-Kun, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete youth appearances are not enough, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but probably passes wider GNG. this at least shows some significant coverage in international media. There is also significant coverage from FIFA, although this might be deemed to close to WP:PRIMARY as this relates in part to competitions FIFA have organized, although the content discusses the player in detail separate from this. There is also clear evidence of a degree of coverage, though perhaps not significant, in other international media outlets. This leads me to believe that there is probably more to be found in Japanese media, although language barriers prevent me from doing this. Certainly her [Japanese WP article contains a number of articles from Japanese news sources that look like they might be more than trivial. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Fenix down's assessment. Seems to pass WP:GNG, and her article is more full than plenty of players who technically pass WP:NFOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of notable achievements at regional level to meet the notability guidelines. MurielMary (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she fails NFOOTY, we can safely assume that all the other coverage is trivial and routine and does not therefore pass the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That makes no sense Tony. Just because someone dosent pass NFOOTY doesnt mean they can't pass GNG. Passing NFOOTY presumes passing GNG, but it is not true to say that failing NFOOTY presumes failing GNG. To be honest im not really seeing any decent deletion rationales here. There are sources in the article indicating GNG but no one voting delete seems to be discussing them in any detail. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the awards and the FIFA coverage provide an exception to the NFOOTY guidelines here. Calm Omaha (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(nominator) Although fails WP:NFOOTBALL, he passes WP:GNG per Fenix down. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARY Digital Tower[edit]

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

the article is same as it was back in 2007. the building is never built and i think it was just planned. Saqib (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 18:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1 ref from 2007 saying it is planned, planned projects can be notable but there is no coverage, it is an empty article. Szzuk (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Simply merge it with List of tallest buildings in Dubai. I think that's the best solution. M A A Z T A L K 14:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listing this building to the said list does not make sense because apparently the building does not exists or may never. --Saqib (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a change here, as I didn't check that the building was not built. I thought it was built. I think that it should be redirected to List of tallest buildings in Dubai, because the building is planned and it would be easier to merge it later on after it is built. M A A Z T A L K 05:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was completely unable to find anything on this building at all. Even looking at the coordinates on Google Streetview gives a (as of Dec. 2016) fenced off lot, but no building is visible. As it stands, the subject fails WP:GNG because it does not have any substantial coverage except for the 2007 article. Agree with Saqib on not merging. Acebulf (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found reference that it will be built, but no mention of it was completed.--Spasage (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issa Mussa[edit]

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

I am not entirely sure here. Maybe someone with more experience can decide.

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.
This article possibly contains original research.
This article needs additional citations for verification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of evidence that this content has been persistently reposted following a consensus to delete, changed from delete to delete and salt. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isse Musse and also similar article at Issa Mussa clan which has been nominated for speedy as a re-creation of the deleted page. Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article is a repost and copy/paste of the Habar Awal article, and this article has already been deleted following a previous discussion. The decision should be to speedily delete this article. Linkjan2014 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added ((salt)) template to the article ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centrespread[edit]

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

I stumbled across this movie while doing my cleanup of List of NC-17 rated films and removed it after finding no information on it being ever rated NC-17, now looking at it I am unable to find any information on it that makes it notable. Seemingly the only information on it is that it exists. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 16:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an Australian feature film that was theatrically released - a not particularly good film but I believe it deserves an entry. Dutchy85 (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it was theatrically released it had reviews which if not online are most probably offline. The article does reference one reliable source review from The Canberra Times. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already one full length review linked. Unfortunately, others are more likely to exist off-line. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 03:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma brava (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable mexican film that only fetches imdb pages, mirrors, torrent sites, and stores when I look it up. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 15:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep finds Variety reviews and Gbook discussion for me. Sources added. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the expansion work that's been done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have been added so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With drawing nomination Looks like the proper sources have been found for the article; A happy AFD ending. Note to closing admin, this page should be moved to Paloma Brava (film) because the b in "brava" should be uppercased.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 17:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chitralian Zubair[edit]

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

fails to meet GNG. Saqib (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per source searches, the subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any notability or even significance. I tagged this for CSD but it certainly is way below the standard of WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did not find anything significant. --Spasage (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. M A A Z T A L K 10:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

APSU-TV[edit]

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

College tv station, fails WP:GNG, no independent sourcing Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of non-notable USA college TV station. Polyamorph (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a licensed broadcast station, but rather a cable TV channel operated by students, so no presumption of notability. Absent adequate coverage in reliable and independent sources, the article should be deleted Edison (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (Irrelevant note: L3X1, "Give the earth back its secrets" is a delightfully ominous delete comment.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qansax Timir[edit]

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

Somali "locality", which means it's just a place and people don't necessarily live there. Satellite imagery shows it's a patch of desert. No sources other than the one database entry used to create the article and some clickbait recycling the same database. Doesn't meet WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 14:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete "Locality" means "non-notable" unless we have some other text about the whatever-it-is, which we do not. Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Give the earth back its secrets. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barka Mareyshir[edit]

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

Somali "locality", which means it's just a place and people don't necessarily live there. Satellite imagery shows it's a patch of desert. No sources other than the one database entry used to create the article and some clickbait recycling the same database. Doesn't meet WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 14:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom; I find the same results. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GTranslate, btw, seems to think it means "US Dollars"!Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate for Somali seems to be complete rubbish [17]. I've seen it give clearly wrong translations for other Somali place names. Hut 8.5 22:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiiight. Will keep that in mind. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to write the word "delete" in somalian but now i can't use google :). L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" does not make an intelligible argument. Sandstein 06:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ehrmantraut[edit]

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

Entirely plot, no real-world information. -- Alex^TW 13:40, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reason given on Kim Wexler's discussion. The Optimistic One (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability for a stand-alone article. It is an article that appears to be a biography, that includes the image in the infobox of the real-world actor Jonathan Banks. "IF" it were notable it should be listed as Mike Ehrmantraut (fictional character). Otr500 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JW Forland Pakistan[edit]

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

This company does not appear to meet WP:CORP and lacks coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment company is registered as foton jw autopark Pvt ltd and you'll find enough coverage if you search using that(I've no issues if articles name is changed to that), the products are sold under the banner jw forland. I've added some sources as well.Osman198 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single cited source directly discuss the subject. Only passing mentions. The rest are non-reliable sources. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete the article, it'll get sometime for a new company to get direct mentions in major newspapersOsman198 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think, that the article is not notable enough as of now, so i'll go with delete on this one. M A A Z T A L K 17:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its new company. It is a joint venture. There is enough proof that they are in business of assembling commercial vehicle. For now, it can stay as stub, but should not be deleted. --Spasage (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" For now, it can stay as stub, but should be deleted. " You're literary confused. I think you need to study WP:ATADD. --Saqib (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, not was missing. I have fixed it. Thanks for pointing out. --Spasage (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very likely that you will soon find yourself topic banned from XFDs, if you continue making such utterly ridiculous and nonsense arguments.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spasage, you do not appear to understand what stubs are, at least not on the English Wikipedia - and I see you have made the same mistake at a number of other deletion discussions. A stub is not something we use for subjects that are not yet notable but might be in the future. A stub is simply an undeveloped article, and is subject to the same notability requirements as fully developed articles. Also, on the English Wikipedia, proof of existence is not proof of notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.Zero non-trivial coverage in RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of search results. Though irrelevant,there has been some self-promotion but even that is very low. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Amber Swartz–Garcia[edit]

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

Random kidnapping that seems to have no major news or impact other than the effects on the immediate family. Yes, it received a few "still missing" news sources, but unless she turns up it's just 30 years of the same story. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is an exceedingly stubby article on a case which has had a number of twists and which is the subject of a book. I'm not terribly convinced that it's notable beyond the usual "still missing" coverage, but people should not be evaluating the matter on the basis of the article text alone. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – This stub article is notable on its face, and there are many online and offline references to build it out. That being said, it currently passes muster as a stub. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 18:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the local police re-opening the case (not because of new evidence, just new tech) I'm not seeing anything substantial to "build it out". Primefac (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad, but there's nothing much, other than a confession decades later, that sets this crime apart from all others of its type. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. 1989 1998 2000 2002 2009 2009 2013 2013 2013 2015 2016. books - [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Seems early coverage is primarily as "Amber Swartz" (and that Garcia was tacked on at some later date - per this rather in-depth piece - her father Bernie Swartz was murdered a few months prior to her birth and her mother lived with Al Garcia but did not marry him due to police pension issues) - and that this was a nationwide photograph item in 1988.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as presented above.BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Guth[edit]

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

Forrest Guth was a junior NCO in E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He participated in the three major actions involving E Company, although he was injured parachuting into the Netherlands and was evacuated. He fails to meet WP:SOLDIER based on rank (sergeant) or awards (Purple Heart). After the War, he taught school in Virginia and Delaware and does not meet WP:GNG. A book by Larry Alexander, In the Footsteps of the Band of Brothers, subtitled "A return to Easy Company's Battlefields with Sergeant Forrest Guth," was about the company not Guth. The source of the citations in the article is unclear; the page numbers don't match content of the copy of Alexander's book I was able to check out of my local library. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Before the AfD, I expanded the article slightly to add information, largely coming from a 1993 interview with Guth by a (local) Wilmington, Delaware newspaper in the wake of Ambrose's 1992 original BoB book. The interview provides a few details about Guth's role in the book which are independent from the book itself, including his role as an interviewee and the use of his photos in the book. I also added a local source about his teaching career (there are a few other very passing mentions about this I did not add) and one local source about the use of his cabinets in a church (based on his late in life hobby). I'm not terribly happy with the state of the article, a few BoB individuals articles which were deleted were in a better state than this one. But I find the added details, especially from the 1993 interview, enough that I think there is encyclopedic content about this individual (passes V and NOR if the museums section is cited or cut; could likely pass NPOV if the military sections are reworded to reflect the less than reliable nature of some sources). I also note that the de Trez book about Guth is published by a publisher about which I could not find details, and I do not know if it should be considered very reliable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject does not meet WP:SOLDIER and did not archieve anything significant otherwise. The name is not mention in the narrative in either the book nor the TV series article, so not suitable for a redirect either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see any notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wexler[edit]

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

Entirely plot, no real-world information. -- Alex^TW 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I glanced through the Google News results for the character (which can be found here), and several articles appear to be focused on the character. There may not be "real-world information" in the article, but it appears that the character has some notability by Wikipedia standards. The following are some sources from Google Books on the character (1 2 3). I would argue that these sources would be enough to keep the article. It definitely requires improvement, but I do not see deletion as a valid answer in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft it, then. It needs some serious plot trimming and some serious real-world information added. There should be more real-world information than there is in-universe plot. -- Alex^TW 02:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather poor argument for deletion in my opinion. I would understand if you are proposing deletion based on the grounds that the above sources may not be enough to prove notability for a separate article (and even though it would be best to argue for a merge to the List of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul characters). However, deletion should not be a substitute for clean-up. Deletion arguments should primarily focus on whether or not the topic is notable (i.e. whether or not it was covered by third-party, reliable sources). is work to improve the article, and it is not a strong argument for deletion. I vote keep or redirect to the List of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul characters if the above sources are not enough to satisfy notability standards. A subsection on the character is already present in that article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last message in this AfD. I just wanted to my vote clear. I am arguing that this article should either be kept or redirected given there is coverage of this particular character in third-party, reliable sources to warrant a space on Wikipedia (whether as a separate article or a part of the list of series character). My argument is based on Wikipedia:Notability. On the other hand, your argument for deletion is that the article requires clean-up and expansion, and you do not even touch on the issue of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article for the character Saul Goodman was nominated for deletion a few years ago because of a lack of content, and the result was Speedy keep, not because of the content, because the character is significantly important to both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the titular character. This is not. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 08:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His importance in Breaking Bad was a reason to keep the article and he wasn't the titular character in that show. Yes both articles for Kim Wexler and Chuck McGill are lacking content, but both are notable, and should be kept, based on notability. Deletion is not a valid answer, so my decision for both articles is keep. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should correct myself: That was the titular character of Better Call Saul. Since they are lacking content, they should be moved to the draft space until such a time that they are more presentable. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I'm pretty sure that everything in those articles has been pulled from episode plot summaries - no unique content exists in either of them. -- Alex^TW 09:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vanity Fair, Screen Rant, and Forbes articles cover the character in depth. WP:BEFORE failure, AFD is not cleanup, etc. Oh, and per WP:ATD-M, a merger to the character list is a more policy-based outcome if this article were to not exist as a standalone. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jclemens has provided ample evidence of notabilityKeineMelon (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC). KeineMelon (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if against policies and guidelines and because other stuff does exist. Wait! don't tell me I can't argue this. It is suppose to be avoided at AFD's but is brought up so many times it can't be counted. This means that when policies and guidelines are ignored by enough people we should leave it alone or get it brought to a conclusion. We should not have fictional biographical articles unless presented as such like Kim Wexler (fictional character) but we do, then splash a real world actor or actress images on the "fake biography" to mix real world and in-universe elements. Every single one of these articles should have a biograpy template added to the page but I don't know if any do. Examples are too many to list but include Mike Ehrmantraut, J. R. Ewing and many, many more. This also means that by proxy we have allowed fake biographies to exist either by WP:IAR, Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, or the unlisted WP:Becasue we like it. It does not matter as consensus has determined that fake biographies with real world names are acceptable. If this has been allowed by more local (project) consensus then it is either accepted by silence or just hasn't received attention. None of this matters as this is being allowed so we should just get over it. A head count will often suffice for consensus even if there are clear policy violations so that is another policy that is ignored. Anyway, I like it but think if the community wants it (fictional character) should be added or at a point consensus will change against real world people added to fake biographies. Just a thought. Otr500 (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck McGill[edit]

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

Entirely plot, no real-world information. -- Alex^TW 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstation of notability beyond the narrow view of the show itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article for the character Saul Goodman was nominated for deletion a few years ago because of a lack of content, and the result was Speedy keep, not because of the content, because the character is significantly important to both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the titular character. This is not. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 08:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote makes no sense, because no fictional element has notability beyond it's fictional setting. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reason given on Kim Wexler's discussion. The Optimistic One (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vanity Fair, Hollywood Reporter, and Variety articles cover the character in depth. WP:BEFORE failure, AFD is not cleanup, etc. Oh, and per WP:ATD-M, a merger to the character list is a more policy-based outcome if this article were to not exist as a standalone. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, as in the Kim Wexler discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jclemens has provided ample evidence of notabilityKeineMelon (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC). KeineMelon (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chronicles of Elyria. Per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soulborn Engine[edit]

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

Non-notable game engine, seems like general self promotion. Only sources cited are their own blog. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info has been added about Soulbound Studios partnering with Improbable/SpatialOS as well as dissolvement of partnership so that server technology had to be piecemealed from other sources and put onto Soulborn Engine. Also added multiple citations from different sources. Bodymindspirit (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chronicles of Elyria. Delete otherwise. No evidence of notability of the engine itself, seems just like the framework the game is running on. Promotional in its current form. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four more article references have been added. Bodymindspirit (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policybazaar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the new WP:NCORP policy standard. Fails WP:ORGIND. Routine press coverage covers funding, IPO and valuation, fails WP:SIGCOV. Reads like an company brochure. scope_creep (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even a company brochure would take time to explain what the company actually does. This doesn't seem to care. There are no details of its operations at all. It reads more like a brochure for the the financiers who funded it. Anyway, there is no hint of notability in the article at present. There are some Google News hits which are enough to show that the company is more than an just an empty financial shell but it doesn't scream notability to me. If there is notability (either now or in the future) then this article would not be a good starting point, so deleting it makes sense whatever the situation. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as when I nominated this for deletion when it was named Policybazaar India: "There are sources but they are overwhelmingly about routine business transactions such as funds moving around between companies." WP:TOOSOON if a tidy rationale is needed, otherwise WP:DRECK. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company most certainly exists, but nothing seems to indicate why the company is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a media to be used for hosting records of routine business announcements, nor is it intended to be an indiscriminate collection of information. This is in addition to the new NCORP guidelines, which require more in-depth coverage than Policybazaar seems to have been able to produce.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only routine coverage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 21:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headbands of Hope[edit]

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

Not a notable charity. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Not notable. Written like a promo. Acnetj (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not !voting because I have a COI with respect to the article (I have no connection at all to the subject itself, but it's on my watchlist because the article was started by some former students). There are issues with the article, indeed, but I don't think it's a case of WP:TNT and there's a decent case for GNG here. It's the subject of coverage on NBC News, Today, Women's Health magazine (winner of its "Game Changers" contest, it would seem; there was also this other one prior to that win, and a story in the regional paper of record about it), InStyle, the News & Observer... and then the less substantial coverage like a brief appearance on Good Morning America, a bunch of blog posts, other local coverage, etc. that aren't really worth mentioning. It's not a slam dunk, but it's clearly not the case that it has "no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: "Headbands of Hope has donated headbands to every children's hospital in the United States.", is a big statement and regional news would bolster notability. I am holding off a !vote in hopes there is a Mr. or Mrs. Hey out there. Even if the CEO becomes rich off of this the idea is a "tug at the heartstring". The current sourcing is lacking but we are actually supposed to !vote by what is "out there" as opposed to the condition of the article. I did not look at the COI listed sources (as of yet) but surely someone can take a gander. I have not looked at the Wikipedia procedures concerning someone involved in classwork and student work on articles. It would seem that at a point an editor in good standing can separate what was, what is, and what will or will not be. If it were me, not having a connection to the company or CEO, but properly claiming some COI, I would see if "proper sourcing" could be somehow nudged from the AFD page to the article. I am against paid editors or company and individual sponsored articles but I am all for class involvement and someone "watching" over an article but we need more than "...a decent case for GNG here". I have issues with the promo part also. It is written like an advertisement and the page states "Ekstrom is an outspoken advocate of social media as a means of advertising, stating that "we can show through pictures how purchasing headbands makes a difference." Purchasing headbands may make her rich (or richer) but making a difference is the little children proudly wearing them in the pictures so to me that PR wording sucks. Otr500 (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am about to embark (now) on my weekly 14-hours-a-day work schedule or I would try to devote some investigating time into this. Otr500 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article is always better than just linking to sources, granted, but explicitly not a requirement for the purpose of demonstrating notability re: deletion (i.e. if notability is the issue the existence of sources sufficient to pass GNG is all that's necessary). That said, if your reason for otherwise deleting would be promotion, that's another story. I don't think that absolutely all of the text is promotional such that WP:TNT would apply, though. I've been trying to find time to sit down and do something with this page, but this is the busiest month of my year (the only real editing I wind up doing much of in March is Art+Feminism-related). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Change of !vote, See below: Promotional (WP:SPIP) and not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And thanks for the AFD 101. This is an article about a business. Everyone is always too busy. The lead starts out with "...is a company founded by college student Jess Ekstrom that gives headbands to children with cancer and funding to research.". Next: "For every headband sold, one is given to a child with cancer. Headbands of Hope has donated headbands to every children's hospital in the United States.". The first search I performed brought up a 2015 article on Headbands for Hope] that is not related. Two articles I found were one from Duke Department of Pediactrics written "By Jess Ekstrom for The Huffington Post" and the "Huff Post" blog I also found Project CHIC that is not related. Wikipedia is not a business listing and GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". Squeeking by, good arguments for notability, and other such reasoning is not a reason for keep but actual notability. Blogs written by the CEO does not advance notability. "She" says the company has given away 75,000 headbands does not cut the mustard. Two pages of searches brought up "things about Headbands of Hope" ---BY--- Heandbands of Hope. This is also BLP related so there is a mandate to go farther than "normal" on sources. "Many print publications have featured Headbands of Hope, including Seventeen, Women's Health, Cosmopolitan, Vanity Fair, People, and Good Housekeeping.", and I could not find one of these. Otr500 (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see them either when I searched. I was trying to imagine why I would've been ok with students adding a list of sources like that without actually adding the sources themselves. I also didn't remember the image -- the students took a picture of one of the headbands themselves, and didn't get a promotional photo like the one in there now. Now I see that in the time since they wrote it it was overhauled by an account with an apparent COI, removing some sources, replacing them with primary sources, and adding both of the problematic statements you've picked up on (the "every hospital" claim and the list of magazines where it's allegedly been "featured"). I've restored the earlier version (and restored the afd tag of course). There are still a couple promotional elements (e.g. the mission statement quote box), but it's less egregious, I think. I should've checked the actual content before commenting here, rather than going by my memory of what it was. That said, if you aren't persuaded that it's notable by the sources in the article and the ones I linked above, this is unlikely to change anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Restored version prior to a COI account added the most problematic promotional content. Still could use some work, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look. Otr500 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (from the change of !vote above): I didn't dig in far enough to see the change you found so I give you a hey on that. The notability of a subject (by sources) is not dependent on the state of the article or lack of sourcing therein. The article "is in bad shape and the only reference without issues is the one I added but the notability of the company is acknowledged by the sourcing found that goes beyond regional and even national. The company, of course, will be somewhat inherently promotional but when written like an advertisement it falls squarely in the middle of what Wikipedia is not and I feel this article has enough significant coverage to warrant stand-alone status. There is a fine line between Wikipedia coverage of the company or the individual, per the lead of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), but the sourcing that includes her basically as also the company front person always associates her with Headbands of Hope so that seems clear to me. I think all subjects should be scrutinized by the criterion found at NPEOPLE as the test: "..."worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia...". Otr500 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:HEY applied. Acnetj (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional puffery. The principle is NOT TABLOID, tho we have sometimes been known to violate if the cause is sufficiently virtuous and the matter pathetic. The "History" section is is typical of the nature of such human interest journalism. Maybe we'll remember we're an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep -- Clearly meets GNG. Aside from the sources already mentioned in this discussion we have e.g. Women's Health 2017, Rodale.com, and so on. A clear-cut case. For those arguing for deletion from the promotional tone of the article, you've established that it needs editing, but as a wise saying of my people would have it, AfD is not cleanup. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.T.R. (Charles Thomas Robert) Hayward[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPROF or WP:CRIMINAL. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several books published with highly reputable academic publishers for which reviews can undoubtedly be found in relevant journals. There seems to be no doubt whatsoever that he is notable, but I hesitate to vote to keep it because it is a BLP and his academic accomplishments seem likely to be overshadowed by other issues. --Hegvald (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets several criteria of WP:PROF. Two books by OUP indicates scholarly distinction for anyone, and indicates he is an authority within his field. Additionally, he was president of the major international society within his field, SOTS. If a person is notable for his academic accomplishments, they are notable, regardless of other issues in their life. We;re writing an encyclopedia , not considering him for employment. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He doesn't appear to pass WP:CRIMINAL, but he does pass WP:PROF (per DGG) and WP:AUTHOR (through multiple published reviews of his books: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]). We should mention the conviction, because it's an important part of his life story, but its non-notability doesn't negate any of the other notability of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per David Eppstein, who has pretty much nailed the case for WP:PROF. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets at least one of these WP:PROF criteria: 1, 3 or 6.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with DGG and David Eppstein that he meets WP:NPROF guidelines for notability. Acebulf (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR & WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bo deal[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. A quick Google search reveals Facebook and LinkedIn pages. Article also doesn't have reliable sources. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Articles has been deleted before as CSD A7 but it has been recreated by the same user. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant independent, third party coverage; Complex, Fader, and hotnewhiphop all solicit and allow user content. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alien Swarm. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Swarm (mod)[edit]

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

While the remake in 2010 is definitely notable, the mod version of this game doesn't seem notable. There is this, but it's more of a fanfiction/stream of consciousness description than an actual article. The sources for it are lacking. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alien Swarm, not notable in itself but could merge to its successor. Szzuk (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyala Prasadarao[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. –no evidence of notability. Plain advertising. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is parked entirely on primary sources, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about the subject shown at all, and it states nothing that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt this person from having to be referenced to reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability and serves as just a promotion. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Merrill[edit]

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

Non-notable actress/model with virtually no coverage to be found in independent rs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- I added her as all other actors in the film were considered notable except for the Native American and it was a Western. Notability passed for de and IT wikis. Famous for being one of four stars of the film and for https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=%22brandon+merrill%22+levi+&&view=detail&mid=1E203280178C19FE86CD1E203280178C19FE86CD&&FORM=VRDGAR&adlt=strict.

d[@-@]b (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The requirement is multiple significant roles in notable films. While I will grant her role in Shanghai Noon is significant, it is not enough on its own to make her notable. Considering that two of the lead roles were played by people of Chinese descent, we should avoid racializing the decisions on what cast are included. Keep in mind that IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not automatically an unreliable source - see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, Nutshell is in dispute see talk

Her second credit is https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20030626005170/en/Levis-Brand-Launches-New-Levis-Type-1 d[@-@]b (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC). The advert is signifigant as it had HR Giger artwork and was pulled because of controversy. Commercials are considered as acting credits by SAG. "Unreliable IMDB" does not include them[reply]

My concern is that what may be an acceptable notability for a dominant cultures such as China and America , may not be for minorities who may not have the same options d[@-@]b (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR for a single notable role, plus I'm not seeing any coverage of her as a model or rodeo rider, so no WP:GNG either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:ENToes not mandate that the subject must also always meet the GNG"

WP:NACTOR states "# Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." First, "Shanghai Nights". Second H Giger Levi Commercial http://www.hrgiger.com/levis.htm. The advertisement "The commercial was aired internationally on MTV and VH1 and in movie theaters. In the USA, it was pulled from broadcast a few weeks after it premiered in July 2003, after complaints from a train safety lobby." d[@-@]b (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A commercial? You're trying to equate an ad to a notable production? To top it off, your link doesn't even mention her name. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Miranda[edit]

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

Nothing notorious work as a model, singer(fail project sexy dolls, none notorious work as DJ), dancer and pornstar(only three movies). A speedly fame around 2008/2009 based in two fake publicity, as niece of singer Gretchen and a virgin debut in porn.

Fail in WP: PORNBIO (see here) and presumably in WP:BASIC, their media coverage is trivial.

WP:Notability is not inherited fair in this case, too. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's a soft porn star trying to diversify into music, or vice-versa. Should first be subjected to WP:PORNBIO and flunks that guideline due to being a self-promoting beginner with almost no industry notice. In music, she is promoting herself as a singer but so far has only earned a couple of cameo appearances in other people's works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Let's start with Globo Group sourcing. According to our own article, Globo is the "largest mass media group of Latin America" and "17th place in a list of the top global media owners". A Google seach of "Carol Miranda" site:globo.com gives over 200 hits. Those hits include extensive coverage dedicated to her[39], by multiple authors,[40] from apparently different divisions.[41] Many of the Globo hits are individually brief,[42] however even those items collectively constitute quite extensive systematic coverage. Even if we were to consider the entire Globo conglomerate a single source, we have plenty of other sources providing significant coverage, including: [43][44][45][46][47][48]. I can't speak Portuguese, but I *think* I've also found a broadcast TV piece on her.[49] She is also personally credited for her videos breaking sales records,[50] so she's not some random actress in some random film. I also found Portuguese Wikipedia closed a deletion-discussion as keep.[51] Each Wikipedia of course makes independent decisions based on our own policies&guidelines, however it is worth noting that editors in the native language found the topic well sourced and Notable. I also consider it noteworthy that in the last half year, the article has been getting over 60 pageviews per day.[52] In isolation that's not proof of Notability, but clearly readers find the article valuable. I'd also like to point out that WP:Notability is not inherited is irrelevant here. She has been getting her own extensive coverage in sources. It is true that many of sources took a special interest in her due to her relation to another famous individual, however that is irrelevant for our purposes.
I find it doubtful we would be having a deletion debate, with this much sourcing, if her work had been in any other genre. Alsee (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the Above - Alsee found many sources but quantity does not mean that notability matters like WP:ROUTINE and WP:SIGCOV have been satisfied. Alsee's list comes with the admission that he/she does not read Portuguese. I did a little experiment and subjected those soruces to Google Translate. Of course that service is not foolproof but I did learn that all of those sources are inspired by the same topic: Ms. Miranda's publicity stunt of selling her virginity for a large sum via a porn video. The source described by Alsee as "her videos breaking sales records" has the misleading title Caroline Miranda Porn Movie Breaks Sales Record but the body of the article merely states that the film about her virginity sold 15000 copies with no verification and without analyzing if that really is a record. All those sources, while focused on that one film, also repeat the point that Ms. Miranda is the niece of Gretchen or was mistaken for the same. We could cite WP:BLP1E here -- Ms. Miranda got noticed for a publicity stunt and got some coverage on that one stunt. And finally, Alsee's point on how Ms. Miranda's article in Brazil's Wikipedia survived is valid, but that may reflect different national opinions on notoriety and what is relevant as an encyclopedic topic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I said I don't speak Portuguese I meant I was unable to evaluate the audio in the video clip. I did use Google Translate to check every text-source I cited. The text sources were significant coverage, and not routine. As for why ReliableSources wrote about her, our job isn't to second guess the judgement of the world. The entire encyclopedia would descend into chaos if we all started arguing whether everyone's else's topics are 'stupid'. Our job is to evaluate whether the world (multiple ReliableSources) did deem the topic Noteworthy enough to publish significant coverage. If so, then whoever who considers the topic worthwhile can write an article summarizing that coverage. Alsee (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have made valid points on what qualifies as "significant" or "routine," and you and I simply disagree on that in relation to this particular article. We can leave that matter up to other voters. But you went too far by implying that voters here "second guess the judgement of the world" (actually it's just Brazil so far) and decide whether other countries' topics are "stupid" or not. I have not argued in that fashion and neither has anyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:PORNBIO. Coverage is clearly insufficient for a BLP. Apart from the publicity stunt, there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If i weight votes i do it on the basis of strength of argument and evidence. The keep side claim google hits show notability but have been asked repeatedly to provide citations to no avail. The argument has been challenged by other editors who see a different set of results and an argument that keep voters dont have to provide citations per nrve does not, to put it mildly carry any strength in weighting consensus. Bottom line we have a policy basis for deletion thatis challenged by assertion not evidence. Weighing that the consensus is to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edon80[edit]

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

Edon80 doesn't seem to be a notable cipher, it's page is about only 1 line. The same designers also designed the Edon-K PQC scheme submitted to NIST, which had since been broken and withdrawn. Dannyniu (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Zero notability.TH1980 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as so much lacking in notability that the article's own creator(s) could not be bothered. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been the subject of crypto research as evidenced by enough hits in Google Scholar to meet WP:GNG in my estimation. Delete justification cites deficiencies in the article and the cypher. This has nothing to do with inclusion criteria. It is valuable for Wikipedia to have coverage on a notable crappy algorithm so to establish wider recognition of weaknesses. Other delete !votes are (so far) unsubstantiated. ~Kvng (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The substance of your argument is that the article should stay up because "coverage [in Wikipedia] on a notable crappy algorithm" would help "to establish wider recognition of weaknesses." Well, as you already know, Wikipedia is not a think tank, a scientific journal, a research center, a laboratory, or a message board. Is "Edon80" notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia? That's all there is to it. -The Gnome (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I was respondinging to the (invalid) reasons given for deletion by others here. Notability is established by significant coverage in published research papers. ~Kvng (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kvng. Plenty of sources in google scholar search. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my Google Scholar search only brought up 168 results as opposed to the 2,000 above, which is less than most other ciphers we keep. It's possible those 168 are enough, but its first Google link is to Wikipedia and I can't find much else on it. [53] SportingFlyer talk 05:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the first GScholar link is to something published by Springer Verlag, not to Wikipedia. James500 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is a bare-bones listing that does nothing to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're aware that it is not appropriate to base your notability assessment solely on the evidence provided in the article. AfC participants here are expected to look deeper than that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies that support both approaches. The BEFORE policies applies only to the nominator. The article itself needs to have encyclopedic value. This one has none.--Rpclod (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're welcome to !vote however you like, but WP:DEMOLISH and WP:TNT are not strong reasons to delete so I wouldn't expect your option to be considered strongly in the final assessment of this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE has always unambiguously stated that as long as sources exist, they do not need to be cited in the article or anywhere else to prove notability. Accordingly the requirement to search for sources applies to everyone. Editors do not have to throw up a list of hundreds of URLs just because someone refuses to look for sources. There are also practical considerations: under CSD G4, a deleted article cannot be restored unless it is 'improved'. Adding sources before deletion makes it harder to avoid that criteria. Since sources and content added to an article during an AfD, especially towards the end, are often mistakenly overlooked or maliciously ignored, and there is effectively an unreasonably short seven day time limit on improvements (especially where the sources are copyrighted and can't be copypasted quickly), it is reasonable for editors to refuse to add anything until after the AfD is over. If you don't like this, I suggest you modify G4, as it seriously discourages any attempt at improvement during AfD due to its bizarre "consensus cannot change" approach. A twelve month time limit on its application would be a reasonable starting point. James500 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per Kvng. There is indeed a lot of coverage in GScholar. James500 (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see someone comment on some of the Google Scholar hits that have been identified beyond their existence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relisting comment by J04n: As far as I can see, the sources in GScholar are independent reliable secondary and contain significant coverage. That pretty much covers everything in GNG. There are a large number of sources devoted entirely to Edon80. GNG doesn't even require that, but we have it here. There is a lot of suitable coverage in GBooks aswell. James500 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Scholar results capture a number of duplicates, naked bibliographic references and other non-authoritative materials as well as some that are authoritative materials. The latter relate primarily to an unsuccessful effort to integrate the algorithm into a larger project. However, none of this is sufficient to indicate notability. As the relisting editor noted, some further analysis - preferably within the body of the article itself - is needed to support notability. Just pointing to a Google Scholar results number does not suffice.--Rpclod (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't just point to a number, I also commented on their length. As far as I can see, they are *not* a single brief sentence in a source that is almost entirely about something else, which is what GHITS is about. James500 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There were, by the numbers, only two !votes to delete: but more than just a matter of numbers was the fact that one was completely irrelevant (no CSD criteria were applicable to this version of the article), and the other, whilst source-based was persuasively countered. Ultimately, there is no consensus from the community to see this article deleted. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Hot Award[edit]

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

An unremarkable award, presented by a nn entity (Sexy Hot is a redirect to Globosat#Current_networks). Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete 'Nuff said.TH1980 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability on its own. The source of the award and the award ceremony might possibly be notable but the award itself does not seem to be, on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After examining sources and media, the subject appears to be as notable as at least the Australian Adult Industry Awards, if not AVN. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing that sets it apart from other prizes such as the Australian Adult Industry Awards or Erotixxx Award. I think the big issue to be addressed is the issue of partiality, since some references are from the same group that promotes the prize, but that is no reason to delete. @The Gnome: Yes, the award is notable in Brazilian industry. It receives good and diversified media coverage. And currently it is the only Brazilian prize of the genre.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guilherme Burn. It seems there is an eponymous channel in Brazil, which might be more notable than the award or confuse the searches. The references (all in Portuguese) in the article, seem to support the supposedly popular notion of the "Sexy Hot" awards as being "the Oscars of Brazilian porn." They are mostly, though, from magazines such as Vice and industry websites and just one from a newspaper of note (Folha de S.Paulo). I'll look into this some more. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Notable awards –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- I'm not convinced that the other awards mentioned here are notable, for example, Erotixxx Award. The sourcing presented does not meet WP:NORG and is generally WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP: NORG does not cover very well prizes, mainly adult prizes. All the prizes mentioned are like the AVN award, less famous, but as remarkable as in their regions / countries. In general, any prize created to divulge a certain branch of work can be accused of WP: SPIP. WP: PRIZE could help define a standard?Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Awards" given by broadcasters to promote their own programming are presumably not notable; while this presumption can be overcome with evidence of independent, substantive coverage, I don't see that here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Your opinion is correct, But I would like you to read this report (only the passage about the award) if possible [54] (in Portuguese). It tells about the conflict between Brasileirinhas, the largest Brazilian porn producer and producers sponsored by the channel Sexy Hot. At the time of the article, 2015, the owner of Brasileirinha considers the award to be fair and relevant to the industry. In 2016/2017 Regulation [55] Playboy (Brazil) is credited as an organizer. Really the impartiality of the prize is not clear in the current issues.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Abbott (motivational speaker)[edit]

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

This appears to be a purely promotional bio of a business author and speaker. None of the referenced quotes, soundbites and "motivational keynotes" (shudder) seem to establish him as independently notable. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had declined the draft as promotional and may be NN, it may survived in draft namespace for improvement, but not in article namespace. But another SPA account Heteait moved it to article namespace. Matthew_hk t c 17:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 43 references for 4 paragraphs, but none of them appear to be both independent and non-trivial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has significant coverage from reliable independent sources: The Kathmandu Post a major daily newspaper published in Nepal; New Business Age a monthly national business magazine in Nepal, his book has been reviewed in The Star an English-language, tabloid-format newspaper in Malaysia and written about in the Daily Mirror a daily English-language newspaper published in Colombo, Sri Lanka. References are excessive and might benefit from removing non reliable sources. Full disclosure I used to work for him so want to disclose my COI, but hope we can review the facts. I will not edit the article for this reason.
^[1]^[2]http://www.newbusinessage.com/Articles/view/6428^[3],
Bevylq (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- The Katmandu Post article is just an interview, which just presents Abbott's personal views. Not independent
- Abbott's "keynote" at the Sri Lankan marketing conference is covered in all of one paragraph. His name appears only twice in the article (plus once more when it was misspelled)
- The book review is just one paragraph - just 2 sentences. Not in-depth. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Judd (actor)[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable actor, seems to fail WP:NACTOR (no multiple significant roles, large fan base, or personal coverage). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a reasonably successful actor, but no really major roles nor press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a reasonably successful actor and on tv for decades, for example in Jossy's Giants. Szzuk (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We don't give articles to journeyman actors. That's what IMDb is for (also not so successful ones). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the last entry says it all "Batman Begins: Narrows bridge cop." The guideline is the roles have to be significant. This at least means they need to be something that would come up in a resonable length plot summary. This role will not come up short of a description of everything that happens in the film, and it would have to border on every event that happens within the film, no matter how likely a viewer is to notice the event. This is why some of the defennses of keeping articles on journeymen actors that come down to "he was in 50 film, he must be notable" should not be accepted. We have far too many articles on actors with only one listed source where that one source is IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Fetalvero Fabella[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and also is a WP:PAID article (see first edit here [56]) JMHamo (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this doesn't even state any notability claim at all — it just calls him a politician, says he graduated university and then ends there without even stating what political role or roles he might ever have held. Of the five sources that survived my stripping of all the invalid WP:CIRCULAR "references" to other Wikipedia articles, two completely fail to mention his name at all, but merely contain a mention of somebody else with the same surname who might have been a relative of this person — but neither this article nor the sources state that as a fact, and at any rate notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so being related to a notable person is not a notability claim in and of itself. And of the three sources that do mention Vicente, one is a primary source and the other two are raw tables of the vote totals in elections that he lost. But people don't get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful election candidates, either. Nothing here is a valid basis for a Wikipedia article at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything that shows notability. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our notability guidelines for politicians. Only sources are unreliable or passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One rule is that articles need to be written in English, which this article is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion due to copyright violation (CSD G12) and User:Jimfbleak has already acted on the CSD. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni[edit]

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

Speedy deleted two days ago, and now recreated. Cannot see enough here or through searching to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is a match for content present at Rotten Tomatoes, so I have nominated for G12 copyvio speedy deletion. The previous deleted article was different, and was a match for this document and some of the material at IMDb. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prevailing winds. Despite an unpersuasive vote that seemed unsure of what it wanted, the clear consensus was to redirect the article. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global wind patterns[edit]

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

This is the same topic as Prevailing winds, except it's unsourced and written poorly. There have been merger discussions on the talk pages but with little participation. Delete and redirect to Prevailing winds. KingAndGod 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Prevailing winds Lite - same subject, less content, with no refs to fatten you up at all! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic is quite notable – see the Teacher's Weather Source, for example – and probably requires several pages such as atmospheric circulation. Per our editing policy, there's no case for deletion and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew D. (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case is not notability but having two articles about the same thing. Merging, as you said, is a matter of ordinary editing which is why I suggested deletion because it offers a similar outcome (eliminating the second article). @Andrew Davidson: what do you mean by "keep/merge"? Should there be two articles about the same topic? KingAndGod 17:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger and deletion are not the same thing. Deletion removes the edit history and the alternative title. Such wanton destruction is not our editing policy. We prefer alternatives to deletion, as deletion is a last resort, not the first option any time there's some sort of issue. Please see WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is uncited. The target article is rated good. I am not sure what can be merged which will improve the target article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to prevailing winds. There's no need to delete the page before doing so, because there is nothing that needs scrubbing (e.g., copyright violations). XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
? Proposal was originally discussed on SpikeballUnion's talk. There was no clear conclusion. The article is a beginner's introduction and presents the basic information more clearly than either Atmospheric circulation or Prevailing winds. These two articles are very similar and both need a bit of work to extract the basic facts.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prevailing winds. There's nothing in this article that could plausibly be merged. Reyk _YO! 08:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
? I assume this got started because I failed to remove the obsolete merge tag from last June. It would be equally reasonable to redirect to Atmospheric circulation, the two proposed redirects being nearly the same. No one is a fit judge of his own work, but my POV is that all knowledge is a hierarchy. I prefer a simple outline of the basic facts before digging deeper. Global wind patterns is what you get when you work on either of the two articles and throw away the details. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Arobelidze[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP with no indication of real notability - I also couldn't find any indication of notability from other online sources, though it would probably just survive an Speedy A7. 90% of the top ghits are for blogs, wiki mirrors and social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram). Certainly doesn't seem close to meeting WP:ENT or WP:ARTIST guidelines. Grutness...wha? 09:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads more like self promotion. Makro (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete “Best know for role as Character without a name” equals not notable Theredproject (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "...best known for his role on The Forgotten King as Soviet soldier #2. He was also in the film 247°F as Ian's double." Need I say more?104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BHR(Humanoid robot)[edit]

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

This article appears to be a catalogue of some non-notable humanoid robots Tried to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but apparently the none of the 6 robots listed in this article appear to meet GNG.. The same article was posted on a Chinese language WP at https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHR(Humanoid_robot). --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient claim to notability. Szzuk (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia tensor of triangle[edit]

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

One textbook's derivation does not an article make per WP:GNG. Use of "covariance" for second spatial moment is nonstandard and confusing. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not a suitable topic for an article. Or what next, an article for the inertia tensor of every geometrical shape? An article for the area/volume of each? The result could be added to List of moments of inertia, but the rest of the content does not belong anywhere.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of moments of inertia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons described by JohnBlackburne. --Steve (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as the nominator points out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Skinner[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this person meets WP:ARTIST criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G4, G5). MER-C 13:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadab Siddiqui[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film director.Has directed 2 films--one of which has been deleted after an AfD and another which is miles away from being anywhere close to notable.Fails general notability guidelines, as all-most all mentions are trivial and/or paid-promo-spam and/or in non-reliable sources. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and G5. The article was created by undisclosed paid COI editor in direct violation of the WP:TOU. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. request for improv,, seems notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Zaragoza[edit]

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

Sources don't support gossip column type text, creator blocked for unrelated reasons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Body of the article was a copyright violation from the Telegraph.[57] I'll work on updating the article. There are lots of sources about him. [58][59][60][61] Meanderingbartender (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Adam Morley[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet any Wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:NBOXING), nor do appropriate sources seem to exist for any of the content. Despite claims of a 20-fight pro career and being a two-time Golden Gloves champion, the subject does not seem to have a BoxRec profile, and is not included on any of the lists of National Golden Gloves champions. Dancter (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Would have Prod'd this as an unsourced BLP but we are here now.PRehse (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added secondary reliable source reference confirming that he did win the Golden Gloves, [62]. As such, claims to notability are confirmed.ShoesssS ^Talk 15:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MIRROR: That source is pretty much a mirror of the List of US national Golden Gloves middleweight champions Wikipedia article from 2013/2014. Dancter (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still a list of Golden Glove That has been verified from a secondary source. (Let's play fair here :-) do not remove references based on personal opinion. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And does nothing toward showing either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX.PRehse (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By mirror, I don't just mean that it shares the same content. I mean it literally copied wholesale from that Wikipedia article version, errors and all, with no apparent editorial intervention, in the manner described at WP:MIRROR, which states: "Copies of Wikipedia are not reliable sources." Thus I do not consider that list to be "verified from a secondary source." I considered the copying to be pretty blatant, but since you seem to consider it to be a disputable "personal opinion," I'll just tag it for others to assess. Dancter (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the "World Heritage" known mirrors. They identify Wikipedia as their source in the "Citational Source" link at the bottom of the article. I've removed it. Kuru (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frankly, this looks like a hoax. The "reference" given was an old mirror of List of US national Golden Gloves middleweight champions, which was modified in 2008 by an IP editor to add the names. This same IP also edited this article, right after it was created by the single-purpose Mrmorley (talk · contribs) account. That same account modified other articles with details on the subject, often mixing up the dates and details of his "accomplishments." It looks like Dancter has fixed the GG list with actual reliable sources. Since this article has sat here for a decade, we need to be meticulous in this WP:BLP to avoid placement on this list. I didn't see anything reliable. Kuru (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree that it looks like a hoax. The claim of a successful pro boxing career is unsupported and, in fact, boxrec.com has no listing for a fighter with this name. In addition, he wasn't listed as a Golden Gloves champion at the Golden Gloves website [63]. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - changed from keep based on the education I received from Kuru and Dancter. Got to admit it does look like a hoax. Thanks for your patience. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rascal Video[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Sources present in the article are passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and / or directory listings. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional crap. Some porn businesses have RS coverage, but there's no sign of it here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Natakam[edit]

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

There is proof that this film existed, but there are insufficient reliable sources available (within/outside of article) to satisfy WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Note: The article claims that Chiranjeevi played a guest role in the film, however, it is not mentioned at all within the Chiranjeevi article, nor does it appear to be a major film in his career (if it was, it might have fallen under WP:NFO alt criterion #2, but that is not the case.) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 1 unsearchable ref, imdb showing it exists but little else. Szzuk (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cullen's humblebrag aside, delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myriadcoin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no coverage in reputable media found Retimuko (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of promotional listings of every obscure collapsing cryptocurrency. This one claims a market capitalization of $27 million (a relatively trivial amount) after four years of operation, but recent (unreliable) cryptocurrency blogs value it at less than $10 million. My house is worth a significant percentage of that. Coverage in truly reliable sources is either nonexistent, or negligible if my search was not deep enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the Cryptocurrency Bubble Poppage Memorial Site. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 08:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as AfD-coatrack for house price listing. I mean, lack of sources independent of topic failing GNG. Widefox; talk 16:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Note, I've removed dead link and properly identified one source as Bitcoin Magazine. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alberto Frigo[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DreamDoll[edit]

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

Non-notable model/musician who fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:MUSIC. This is an interesting AfD, as the subject is both an entertainer and a musician. DreamDoll fails WP:NMUSIC as her one single and EP both fail to meet any of the criteria set by WP:MUSICBIO. WP:TOOSOON should also be cited, as the subject's music career began in May 2017. The subject also fails WP:ENTERTAINER, as despite the fact she has made two one-season appearances as a supporting cast member on two different shows, this does not fulfill the unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment or the significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions required by WP:ENTERTAINER. Furthermore, in my multiple attempts ([64]) to clean this article I found WP:SIGCOV and WP:VER to both be a constant issue. Some coverage does exist concerning this individual, but none I found went in-depth into the subject, and the vast majority of the information I found was traceable to blogs and other unreliable sources, thus a WP:GNG failure is also likely. In short, the article subject exists but in no way has achieved the notability to be included in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should also be noted that Life in Plastic and DreamDoll discography were both recently created by the same editor that created this article, and all three have seen no significant additions by other editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is WP:Fancruft or promotional material that fails to meet the standards for Notability. SamHolt6 has done a great job to clean it up and remove the worst offending material. What is left is not notable: supporting roles in two minor reality TV series and one unremarkable EP do not make for a notable contribution.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for an entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritesh Tiwari[edit]

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

Still not a notable politician yet. The sources in the article are trivial mentions or blogs, and no significant coverage could be found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in state legislature elections — he has to win an assembly seat, not just run for one, to clear WP:NPOL, and absent that he has to already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy. But being secretary or spokesperson of a state political party chapter is not an automatic inclusion freebie either, and he's not sourced anywhere near well enough to clear WP:GNG for that work: the references here are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other people or things, primary sources and photographs of him in stock photo databases. None of them represent reliable source coverage that is substantively about him, which means none of them assist in establishing notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON and lack of independent, reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NPOL and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Hampson (artist)[edit]

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

Remarkable lack of secondary sources. User:Topcipher PRODded this last year and they had a point: the tone is promotional, the content mostly trite, and the references not impressive. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is reliably cited to multiple independent sources: I have added some more, with reviews of the mosaics. I was unable to discover a promotional tone in the article. Hampson belongs to a tradition of artists with a unique vision. He never hit the big time but has certainly achieved a degree of recognition for his work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't dispute a "degree of recognition"--but it barely registers on any scale. He's little more than a roadside attraction who gets, in all, a couple of sentences in books on roadside attractions. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes but that has been happening over and over again since 1923. Even if you delete the article, people will keep writing about it. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reliable secondary sources. Rodin no….Notable yes. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have naught but the greatest respect for my Dixie-dwelling colleague Herr Dokter Drmies, but he is wrong about this one. The tone may be promotional, the content may be trite, and the references may not be impressive, but not one of these astute observations constitutes a reason for deletion. The only reason for deletion is non-notability, and this fellow, Mr. Hampson, clearly satisfies the GNG. Aside from the sources in the article which, unimpressive as they may be, there's e.g. this item as well as many guidebooks discussing the guy's work. The NEH is preserving it and we should do no less. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk sources in the current version: 1. is the online magazine of a local conservation center. 2. is a write-up on the website of a small, local museum--apparently the only one who was interested in his work. 3. is the best in the bunch: a short note in a Lonely Planet guide--at least that one was printed. 4. is a single sentence on an art advocacy organization's website. 5. is a page on the Roadside America website--an outfit whose editorial control is vague, to say the least, but it's clear what they list: minor roadside attractions. 6. is a dude's website and God only knows what this link is supposed to verify. 7. is a WordPress blog whose author is possibly reliable, but the publication itself is not, and the two paragraphs are hardly in-depth. 8. is a single paragraph on the NEH website. 9. is a chatty travel blog on the Atlas Obscura website (mostly user-generated content), with three sentences on our subject. 10. is a grant request for the NEH (I have no idea why someone would think that a reliable source for an encyclopedia.
In short, while I am sympathetic to the "keep" arguments, we have at best one single printed source that can be called secondary and reliable (and sure, the IP's Google snippet which suggests there are at least two more sentences about this guy in print), and the best of the rest are varying degrees of website. BTW "references may not be impressive" is actually a reason for deletion: "doesn't pass GNG" for lack of coverage in reliable sources, let alone any kind of in-depth coverage of the subject, which is exactly why I nominated this. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadside America website is however associated with Kirby and the book series, as its 'About' web page confirms, so the wikilink was correct, not "confusing". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The wide selection of tourist-oriented sources confirm GNG. Folk art like this can be just as notable as more traditional forms, as demonstrated by the sources. At one point it may have been a family-notability preservation project (e.g. the museum donation), but it has been noticed by enough people and written about enough times that it is part of the public vernacular-- even if that fact bugs some people. Lots of artists (think van Gogh) do not achieve any kind of notability until after death.104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry--which "wide selection"? Written about where? Reliable sources please. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ones in the article. I know we will disagree on that though. I see a lot of !voters arguing keep here for the same reason. I can see the reason for questioning the notability: the kids gave the bug paintings to a museum and they eventually gained some notoriety. It's to some degree invented or marketed. However it seems clear from the coverage that they are in the museum, people write about it enough in non-trivial sources that it has gained an independent amount of notoriety. I know you will reply that the sources are crap.. so I acknowledge your reply in advance. Oh and by the way, here is another source form Frommers, and one from the National Endowment for the Humanities (book, not web site), and sentence mention in that there New York Times. As a former professor once said to me, "it's hard as hell to get into the public vernacular, but once you're in, it's twice as hard to get out." 104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ARTIST #4 I think covers him. His work is a permanent collection in a museum. The coverage on by Roadside America I think counts towards his notability since as the Doug Kirby article's referenced information reads: "Roadside America series of travel books.[1][2] The series has received favorable reviews from The Village Voice and Car and Driver, and was featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show." So those are notable whether the information is published in a printed book or on the official website. Got coverage in The Newark Evening News of February 17, 1923. So WP:GNG is met. Dream Focus 18:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't even claim to be written by Doug Kirby. And Artist #4? I suppose you're pointing at d., "the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", which is obviously not met (the one museum is barely notable). a. through c. also aren't met, quite obviously--surely it is clear that there is a complete lack of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reference is about the series, it doesn't matter which writer did it. The series should have its own article, but it doesn't, just one of the writers. The GNG is met, that's all that matters. Dream Focus 22:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a couple unreliable sources and the article could use cleanup, but GNG ~~and CREATIVE are~~ is fulfilled here. (edit) I also added two sources. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jpay platform[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in a few reliable sources thus lacking notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The work is in process. It's just not updated yet. [[joseph3553]]^(talk) 01:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should create the page in your WP:SANDBOX then before moving to the mainspace. I have a feeling you're going to have a tough time finding reliable sources establishing the company's notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet. New non-notable crypto?? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Mustafa (footballer)[edit]

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

Restored contested PROD taken to AfD for community discussion. Procedural nomination only; I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Original PROD tag was because the subject fails WP:NFOOTY by virtue of not having played in a fully-professional league (which for Australia would be the A-League).

The relevant comment from Ayasliyim contesting the PROD on my talk page:

The National Soccer league (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Soccer_League) was Australia's national competition from 1977 to 2004. It was the top flight national league governed and approved by FIFA. In my opinion, any national league that is governed and approved by FIFA (even if semi-professional) should be included in the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. The club that Mustafa played for South Melbourne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Melbourne_FC) at the time participated in The 1999 Oceania Club Championships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Oceania_Club_Championship) under the Oceania Football Confederation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania_Football_Confederation). The winners of the Confederation were entered into the inaugural 2000 FIFA Club World Championship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Club_World_Cup) which was/is an international FIFA organised competition televised around the world. Any player participating at this tournament with some of the wolrd's biggest clubs should be regarded as notable alone. Also, he has appeared in print media such as Soccer International magazine and the Herald Sun newspaper. Back in the early 2000s most things were in print so I will need to find copies of these if requested.

I don't know enough about football to know if that's enough to swing an NFOOTY pass, so I'm bringing this to the community for consideration. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per StirringUpTroubleInTheFirstDegree. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In its heyday, NSL was very popular. It's hard to imagine that there weren't fully professional players, particularly in strongly supported clubs like South Melbourne. However, I have no info on what sort of salaries were available. I'm concerned that including A-League and not its predecessor includes a pinch of WP:RECENTISM. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. A couple of things just because it was top national competition recognised by FIFA doesn't mean it meets requirements. That is what WP:GNG is for. Otherwise you could argue New Zealand Football Championship league is notable. Then teams like Auckland City FC players would qualify too because they made OFC Championship games and they are also semi-professional. In the end it's about if the league is professional, not if the players are or even the team they play for is, if the league isn't. NZFC^(talk) 03:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- South Melbourne Hellas often had crowds of 20,000 or more. If a player received an offer to play in Europe, they would increase his salary to keep him. It's clear that Ulysses Kokkinos was fully professional (the article states that he was paid more at South Melbourne than at Panathinaikos F.C.). But all this was before Mustafa Mustafa. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is fine and see if they meet WP:GNG and with Ulysses Kokkinos they ended up playing for a professional team in a professional league. But at the moment it's playing for a professional team in a professional league. Not just that the player plays at a popular club and gets paid well. Need to argue changing those rules at WP:FOOTBALL. NZFC^(talk) 04:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe SALT. I was sure we have deleted this guy twice before with one under slight different name. Govvy (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madhukar Soma[edit]

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

resume-like article with a forest of refs, but mostly to his own website. I see nothing which comes anywhere close to being relevant to WP:GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources cited are not independent and a quick Google search yields close to nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Probably WP:COI. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE due to a lack of independent coverage, and fails to posit how this photographer is individually notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Painter[edit]

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

The subject only has three non-notable portraits attributed to himself and doesn't appear notable in any other way. ThePortaller (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's rare to know anything at all about Roman artists; the fact that three surviving works from antiquity, at least one of which is in an American museum, can be attributed to him, is reasonably notable. If the information about him is rather sparing, it's still likely that more could be written about the style or method of his work, descriptions of the individual portraits, his time period, or other circumstances. And at worst, he could be folded into articles about other similar painters with this title as a redirect. In any case, it would make no sense to delete an article about a known Roman artist just because we don't know his name, or because the people he painted might not have been important. P Aculeius (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First of all, nom gives no valid reasons for deletion. We do not judge artists by the number of works they've produced, otherwise why not try to delete e.g. Emily Bronte while you're at it? Second, this painter clearly meets GNG as they're widely discussed in the scholarly literature. Here are a few items from JSTOR just for instance: [65], [66], [67], a review of the monograph Siana Cups I and Komast Cups: Plates which discusses the Painter, this GScholar search, and so on and on and on. An extraordinarily shoddy nomination. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Non-valid reason for deletion, article is definitely worth keeping. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why on earth would we want to delete a page describing a painter whose work is held in the permanent collection of a very notable museum and who is frequently mentioned in scholarly journals? His/her contribution to the field (Circa 100 A.D.) is established by the foregoing, establishing WP:CREATIVE.104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Sources turned up by clicking 'books' and 'scholar' above are sufficient. Nom could have quickly checked this. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of book hits that seem reasonable. Artists that are written about some 2,000 years after their death are typically notable even when few works survive.Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that a common style leads modern scholars to attribute three ancient portraits to one artist (whose name we do not know), should be enough to keep an article, though I would like to see this expanded with more about what is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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