Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 31 March 2 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello in different laguages

Hello in different laguages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, including a language dictionary. This content might be more suitable for Wikiversity, since it appears to be written as a guide, which is not the tone we strive for on Wikipedia. The references are all pretty much just Google Translate, which is not sufficient for providing the nuance/accuracy of a more reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions because misery loves company. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:24, 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 speedy redirect to Ubisoft. WP:SNOW redirect, seems cut and dry. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

UbiWorkshop

UbiWorkshop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Ubi Workshop" appears to relate to Ubisoft's merchandise store. I couldn't find any reliable sources (or any sources for that matter) detailing exclusively a short film company by this name, but an in-house merchandising team (far from a subsidiary). The only source presently in the article appears to be unreliable AND dead. Smells like original research to me. In any other case, it would definetly fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Could perhaps be turned into a one-liner on Ubisoft Montreal and redirect there. [1] Lordtobi ( ✉) 22:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:36, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Chihiro Hasegawa

Chihiro Hasegawa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Agree with nom, the sources (while botched in their own right) and not independent of the subject matter nor reliable. Considering the subject matter, this seems to be a BLP violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 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 Jungle de Ikou!#Natsumi Rokudo/Mii. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Mii (Jungle de Ikou!)

AfDs for this article:
Mii (Jungle de Ikou!) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD's several years ago. Has been re-created and still has no established notability. Current references are imdb and what appear to be two fansites. Was returned to redirect, but recent creator thinks the current sourcing is enough to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect - Character from a fairly obscure and old OVA series, that has no real-world significance or coverage. At best, maybe a redirect, but considering the series is mostly forgotten now and thus the title might not longer be a viable search term, I wouldn't be opposed to a delete. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect. The sources cited are 1) IMDb (Not RS), 2) MyAnimeList (Not RS), 3) Fan site that is mainly just a bunch of screen shot pictures (Not really RS) with no content to analyze the character. There is no notability shown for the character independent of the series. Editor would be better served updating the descriptions on the Jungle de Ikou! page for all the characters and referencing those to episodes or RS websites. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:19, 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 Withdrawn by nominator after stubification by another editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard Houghton (died 1559)

Richard Houghton (died 1559) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The contents of the article do not relate to the subject, but, I suppose, to one of his ancestors and appear to have been copied and pasted. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Rathfelder: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination. Pam D 22:47, 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) 00:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Tudela FC Los Angeles

Tudela FC Los Angeles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. A Google search yields nothing more than their site, videos, blog posts and social media profiles. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 21:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 21:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 10:25, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

SpaceCrafter

SpaceCrafter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no references and has no indication of notability. And hence, doesn't qualify WP:NSOFTWARE.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:51, 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. Sandstein 07:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of open access repositories in India

List of open access repositories in India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory. The list consists of a bunch of websites of non notable repositories. More of a project for Wikiversity Ajf773 ( talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons: reply

List of open access repositories in Australia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of open access repositories in Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of open access repositories in the Americas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of open access repositories in Croatia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of open access repositories in Canada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Looking at the two policies that would seem to apply, WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:Directory (specifically, points 1, 4 and 7), I don't this really violates those. These are lists of open repositories of information. I wouldn't call that "loosely associated topics" in any way. They are pointers to other reference materials. My take is that the policies are designed to prevent business listings, pure statistics, current events listings, and the like. While we need to be careful with the criteria, I feel this topics are acceptable for an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Oa01 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

  • The SA with NC, means that the derivatives have to also include the -NC. So posting it here claiming that NC does not apply is a copyright infringement. It may not be an infringement to put it on Wikipedia, but claiming the wrong license makes it so. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete India. WP:NOTDIR. Also content will eternally fail the inclusion criteria WP:CSC so list would just be a blank page. Cesdeva ( talk) 18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all these pages are just replications of the information available at http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php . While they appear up to date now (all created on 1st of April), I can't see how they will stay concurrent with the source data. The OpenDOAR wiki page exists as an entry point to this database. Teraplane ( talk) 22:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. However, if it is a suitable project for Wikiversity, deletion should wait until it's moved there. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No opinoin, but not a copyright vio I do not see any copyright violation. It is okay to copy lists like this, even if there is a claim of copyright, when the information is not eligible for copyright. A "list of obvious things by region" is not copyrightable because it is a statement of facts. If the list were "recommended things by region" or a matter of someone's choice rather than fact, then it could be copyrighted. Wikipedia does not have clear policy on list like this. However, all of this information can go into Wikidata, and each of these organizations can have a Wikidata item. Although the functionality does not exist now in Wikipedia, I think that soon somehow Wikimedia projects will make it much easier for anyone to generate and share lists of things like if they are in Wikidata. I recommend considering Wikidata as a place for this regardless of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per WP:SAL, these don't seem to fit the stand-alone list criteria. Natureium ( talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all I don't see why we should copy lists maintained by others, copyvio or not. This kind of linkfarms is also being added to other articles (see for example Open access in Italy). -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:23, 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 Keep. ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Aqualandia

Aqualandia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, let alone being a non-notable waterpark Lewwitness ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 19:55, 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 keep. Consensus is that she meets WP:PROF (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Susan M. Dray

Susan M. Dray (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had originally put this up for speedy deletion, but the author came in and added sources. This said, the sources provided are all biographical sources and at least one article that the subject has written. My assertion is that this is not demonstrating notability as per WP:GNG and the sources are insufficient as per WP:RS. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 17:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Author: I am still not sure why this user thinks the sources are "questionable"? There are lesser traces of this person online and so these are the best sources I could find. In addition, could he please elaborate as to which exact sources are deemed "questionable", most of them are directly from organization's websites and the person's official CV. Once he does, I will go through each one of them to prove their reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsh6 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Kumarsh6: They are unreliable exactly because they are from the person's CV. Fails WP:RS/SPS, w.r.t. "the article is not based primarily on such sources." deadwikipedian ( talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
CVs are allowable for factual and uncontroversial information about the subject (like her education and employment history). They do not contribute to notability, but in cases such as this one, notability is based on the criteria of WP:PROF, not on the availability of sources. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:47, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

CID Vs Adaalat – Karmyudh

CID Vs Adaalat – Karmyudh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, non-reliably sourced article about a crossover television episode fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. The only provided reference is from a non-reliable source and the article was originally started with a copyright violation. Aspects ( talk) 17:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:49, 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 speedy delete. G5 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A23101990/Archive SmartSE ( talk) 16:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Knovos(Software company)

Knovos(Software company) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source to establish notability, fails WP:NCORP. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I am closing as G5. SmartSE ( talk) 16:12, 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. Per WP:NBAND #6 as stated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Zhou Jieqiong

Zhou Jieqiong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable person, fails WP:NMUSIC – the article was restored with an explanation that she is receiving a "significant individual coverage in China and Korea", which is not supported by sources in this article since this whole article is about the band she is a member of, all sources are just trivial and short, nothing in-depth, and she has ZERO solo releases in music. Snowflake91 ( talk) 16:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Keep – Article needs work, but her notability is beyond reasonable doubt. As the only Chinese member of two popular K-pop bands who often performs solo on Chinese TV shows, Zhou Jieqiong is very famous in China and South Korea. A Baidu search of her Chinese name yields a whopping 4 million pages, and a Baidu News search returns more than 200 recent news articles about her, with significant coverage from numerous media outlets. - Zanhe ( talk) 16:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Can you give a few examples of those in-depth news coverage? A short articles "Zhou Jieqiong did that", "Zhou Jieqiong did this", "Zhou Jieqiong will guest on a TV show there and there" etc. is not a significant coverage. Snowflake91 ( talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
See e.g. IJQ starbase, 360.cn, and the news site Edushi has a news portal dedicated to her. - Zanhe ( talk) 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Pristin: per above - individual has not acted nor have they released any solo music. Abdotorg ( talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Makes no sense to redirect to Pristin while ignoring her significant career with I.O.I. Besides, many members of I.O.I have individual articles. - Zanhe ( talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason; yes, some of those articles about IOI members (especially Yeonjung) probably doesnt meet criterias, you can AFD them if you want. And what is her "significant" career with IOI? Simply being a member of the band does not make her notable, no matter how popular the group is. Snowflake91 ( talk) 17:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Of course simply being a member of the band does not make her notable. But didn't I already give you evidence of WP:SIGCOV above? - Zanhe ( talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Note that before nominating an article for deletion, checks such as a search for sources should be performed per WP:BEFORE, and simple news searches would reveal numerous sources - e.g. in Chinese and Korean. She qualifies under WP:NBAND #6 as a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. There is no requirement for solo releases nor for having acted. Hzh ( talk) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Good point. Besides, she does act as a dance coach on the popular reality show Idol Producer. - Zanhe ( talk) 18:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Results on search engines are not relevant, there can be only a few results in reliable media, but all of them could be an in-depth coverage of the person with many details; there can also be a huge number of results, but however, all of them are just a short routine / trivial reports of her (or her group) activity, like in this case. And that #6 criteria has been discussed a lot on the talk page, it even reads "Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution", and how do you determine if she was just "a member" or a "prominent member" of the large group as I.O.I, she didnt even make top 5 in voting and was not a lead singer of the group either, so why is she a "reasonably prominent member" ? Snowflake91 ( talk) 19:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If you want to question the suggestion given in WP:AFD on what to do when starting an AfD and why you are right to ignore its guidelines, I'd suggest you do it in the talk page there, not here. I'm not sure you have checked the hundreds of news sources to say "all of them are just a short routine / trivial reports", given that first few pages already contain news article that cannot said to be short. Also that "reasonably prominent" would imply that it includes members who are not necessarily the most prominent, which you have arbitrarily cut off at top 5, perhaps you should explain why first. Hzh ( talk) 23:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, all of them are trivial random reports of what she was doing – "Pristin members will sign an endorsement deal with the cosmetic company", "Jieqiong was spotted at the airport wearing this", "Jieqiong posted this on instagram", "Jieqiong will appear on a tv game show as a guest" and that kind of fancruft reports. While the chinese sources – pretty much every single Chinese result are just a short reports/reviews of Idol Producer episodes, where she is mentioned as a cast member. Do you know what is a "significant, in-depth" cover of the person? Something like this, and not trivial reports in 4-5 sentences like those Korean/Chinese news articles. Snowflake91 ( talk) 09:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It is clear that you haven't actually read much of the articles. I only glanced through a small number out of the hundreds of news links, and they show that she plays major roles in a few TV shows (one show is on wardrobe, perhaps that is what you refer to what talking about what she is wearing), and therefore she also qualifies under WP:ENTERTAINER #1 for significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The sources you dismissed like this [1] in fact show why she qualifies because of the prominent roles she has in those shows, they are not just trivial passing mentions. I hardly know who she is because I don't pay much attention to modern Chinese or Korean pop culture, but just going through the sources it is clear that she qualifies under multiple criteria. Hzh ( talk) 12:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Snowflake91, you asked for evidence of sigcov, and I gave you multiple articles from mainstream entertainment and news websites above, yet you still repeatedly claim there's no sigcov. This is a typical case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop. - Zanhe ( talk) 14:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
See those GNG criterias again – I cant help if you cant distinguish between "Coverage" and "Significant coverage". Again, none of those mainstream entertainment sites you listed are covering her in-depth, we had many AfDs for K-pop group members and the articles for persons with zero solo musical releases were always deleted, if thats the case, then every single member of any K-pop group could have an own article, because all of them would get a lot of results on search engines (mostly trivial mentioning of their activity – K-pop is so huge, that you would literally get dozens of articles if one random member would just dye their hair or something like that), but that doesnt mean that the subject is covered in-depth. Snowflake91 ( talk) 15:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Pristin: per above - I went through all links that would load, so far no in-depth coverage - just passing mention in results of the group or Idol Producer. With no solo exposure and no significant roles, it's just typical Kpop member as usually. Agree with Snowflake91 here. Evaders99 ( talk) 02:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:45, 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Irina Bagration-Gruzinsky

Irina Bagration-Gruzinsky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Non notable 14 year old daughter of Ana Bagration-Gruzinsky notability is not inherited, the sources are a blog and Facebook. No in-depth coverage. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Theroadislong ( talk) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:39, 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 07:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Independence of Azerbaijan

Independence of Azerbaijan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article looks a bit Forky and I think any material here should be merged with what ever article [Declaration of Independence (Azerbaijan)] [Azerbaijan Democratic Republic] [This is a good article. Follow the link for more information. Listen to this article Azerbaijan] maybe most appropriate, I am really not seeing what purpose this article serves. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This is bringing together two unrelated states occupying the same territory: a republic 1918-9 from the break up of the Russian Empire and which later federated into USSR and a successor republic to USSR. I feel sure that we have adequate articles on each without needing this one too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: an unneeded split of the history of Azerbaijan. Two unrelated entities do not make sense being placed together like this. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:37, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Heavenkid

Heavenkid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as it stands is a collection of self-promoting links. Virtually no third party reference to verify notability. The original PROD was removed by a major editor of the article. COI is suspected. Mys_721tx ( talk) 10:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The only non NTD reference is a press release from a film festival. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 10:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:28, 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 no consensus. Not much interest either, at this point no reason to re-list. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bob Halloran (ABC sportscaster)

Bob Halloran (ABC sportscaster) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails notability threshold under GNG and JOURNALIST. He is one of many, many local US TV News/Sports/Weather on-air talent. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 19:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stongest possible keep there is LOTS of coverage of this individual's work as a sportscaster, his books, and his illness. Here's just one example. His Micky Ward book helped inspire the movie and is widely reviewed. I don't understand this nom. FloridaArmy ( talk) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment- The Fighter is NOT inspired by Halloran's book, but was inspired by High on Crack Street: Lost Lives in Lowell. Halloran worked as a consultant on The Fighter. That's not a ticket to notability. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
According to reliable sources Halloran's book DID inspire aspects of the movie and is credited in it. This author was a consultant on it and a Whitey Bulger film, another subject he wrote a book about. See here. FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The most that can be said, based on that source, is that he wrote some book. Not a ticket to notability still. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Joseph Bishop

Joseph Bishop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An LDS mission president, community colleges president, or an author of a few obscure religious books does not make for notability; rather, individual is notable for one event: accusations that are better covered on its own page. Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 04:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply

(As for the wp:Notability_(events): "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" - I believe this is the case here. This is not just a routine news report about a minor event. The news have already made its topic notable.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 04:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
striking duplicate !vote. Primefac ( talk) 00:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That was my only !vote.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The nomination itself was your first !vote. WP:AFDFORMAT says "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line". Dorsetonian ( talk) 07:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Bishop was President of Weber State University which meets WP:PROF "#6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Therefore he definately gets an article. The whole assault issue was not in the article when I approved it and that issue has been largely added by the nominator. If the assualt allegation warrants a mention, it needs to be a short and sweet mention - and definitely not an entire article. I've tried to counsel the nominator on this but hey clearly are not getting my point. Legacypac ( talk) 04:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Weber State Univ. did not exist 1972-1978. (Neither did Utah Valley University.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 04:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Au contraire. 1st Pres. of Weber St. U. in fact was Paul Thompson...in 1990. Pls see: (1) List of Weber State University people#Principals and presidents (2) a quote from a recent profile of Bishop (owing to recent events) in the local[-to-Weber] Ogden UT Standard-Examiner: "Bishop contributed to Weber State’s shift from a college to a university...".-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At least as of 2004 Weber State Univeristy barely granted more bachelors degrees than did Henry Ford College which is a community college. In the 1970s Weber State University was a two year community college just begenning transitioning to giving four year degrees. We already have a seperate article on the accusations against Bishop. Bishop is the author of a few books virtually no one has heard of, ran a place that in the 1970s is best described as a community college, was a mission president (which is clearly not grounds for notability), was president of the MTC (which is also not grounds for notability, and so not defining I could not even tell you who the president of the MTC was when I was a missionary there). He was also a professor at BYU, as best I can tell the director of some of its teacher education functions. I do not think any reasonable interpretation of Academic notability point 6 would make Bishop notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If this article is deleted we should delete the article on Wilford M. McKendrick. Even if it is kept, McKendrick was the principal of a high school for two years. Although there may be more info that might indicate notability for McKendrick. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What are we going to do about Joseph Bishop sexual abuse allegations? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Procedurally speedy keep. The nominator significantly expanded the article's controversy section, split it into an article of its own, and now wishes to delete the original article. That would be a cut and paste move which will lose the earlier edit history and the talk page discussion, and should instead have been been done by moving the page to a new title and removing the extraneous content. Therefore, even if we support the nominator's proposal that there should be an article about only the event and not the subject, the nominated article should still not be deleted. Dorsetonian ( talk) 16:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also delete the spin-off article about the unsubstantiated accusations. This person is not notable and we should not have an article about unproven accusations about a non-notable person. That article is a blatant BLP violation since there has been no conviction, and the alleged offense, though serious, is commonplace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
cmt - Accdg to wp:1E, wp:GNG & wp:Publicfigure are incontiguous. In the US, one inadvertently becomes a public figure when accused of a crime, as far as 2ndary sources covering the same in the news media (in this paricular case, the NYT, WaPo, FNC, HuffPo, USNews&WorldRpt, etc.) is concerned. WP does not have to follow suit, of course (e.g., a recent Mass. court decision controversially renders even victims as inadvertent public figures). (IMHO, due to the present case's notoriety, due to the alleged abuser's non-notability otherwise, perhaps a reasonable compromise will be to render him into the generic "the Missionary Training Center's mission president '82-'86 and have it a child article to the parent article " Mormon abuse cases." -- And, such discretion w rgd those inadvertently become public figures should be done across the WP project, not just here. [Cf.: " Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston," " Catholic Church sexual abuse cases"], etc.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Additional comment: I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 allegations of 1984 LDS missionary-trainees' abuse Dorsetonian ( talk) 20:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have no clue how to engage with this non-visual editor so my apologies to other more experienced Wikipedia editors. I am the original submitter of the entry. I appreciate the efforts of others to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool to engage in character assassinations of others. A lot has been added to what I originally wrote around the sexual abuse controversy. I tried hard to be very neutral in my original coverage. If the additional edits have gone to far, then pare them down. The whole minimization of his role as a President of Weber State College seems like an effort to protect unfavorable association. It is quite easy to see that other Presidents of Webster State / College have Wikipedia pages and they perhaps are of equal notoriety for better or worse. (I didn't dive into whom of them were still living.) I just question the motives of trivializing Weber as not being major academic university. In terms of there not being a "conviction". There probably never will be due to the statute of limitations on this. There has been an undeniable confession by him to the police that he asked her to expose her breasts and that he was serving in a position that all within the LDS church would revere as quite significant. Faithcrisis ( talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • No one "revers" the president of the MTC. We have never even gotten a full consensus that all general officers and general authorities of the Church are notable. Area Seventies, who are probably higher in the hierarchy than MTC presidents, are by consensus only notable for other things. If I had asked Every Mormon I know, which is a lot, who Joseph L. Bishop was 2 months ago, I doubt any would have known. While from a religious perspective Bishop asking a woman to expose her breasts is wrong, I find it hard to construe it as a criminal act, especially in light of the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:PROF is a hard standard to meet and if you meet it you meet it. It is nonsense to say Weber State College is not the same as Weber State University - same school. Additionally even if one argues that he was not notable before these allegations, all the press on the allegations makes him notable now. Legacypac ( talk) 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Change my delete !vote above to: Speedily close AfD & delete blp! per extremely applicable considerations @ Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLPCRIME.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 22:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Commment in the last 10 or 20 years there has been a strong tendency for educational institutions to adopt more prestigious titles--in the US, many former technical institutes have become community colleges, many community colleges have found some method of granting a bachelors degree and called themselves colleges, many colleges have devised some sort of graduate programs and been relabelled as universities. (I believe a similar process has taken place in the UK). Though WP:PROfstates that we regard presidency of a major university as not just implying but proving notability , in practice we have been extending it to all universities and to 4-year colleges. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Actually there are many places in the US that do not grant anything above a bachelors degree that use the name university. Southern Virginia University is an example of this, but by no means the only one. There are regional issues as well. In the east we have Boston College and The College of William and Mary that are by any definition universities. In Utah and some surrounding states, university is pretty much designating any institution that grants 4-year college degrees. BYU-Haweaii and BYU-Idaho are other examples of the all undergraduate university. On the other hand in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, there are junior colleges that are Snow College and similar. It should be kept in mind that community colleges and junior colleges are different. In almost all cases community colleges are junior colleges (although I am working on a post-bachelors certificate from Schoolcraft College which is a community college, so the issue is complex), but classic junior colleges like Snow College are not community colleges at all. The community college tends towards lots of technical programs, career orientation, while also having an emphasis on preparing people for universities. Most key it is almost always a multi-campus entity, with a clear attendance district that it seeks to serve. The junior college is a college that tends more toward liberal arts and general education, has most of its students transfer, will at times have a single campus, dorms, and some are even private institutions. Some also evolved from regional academies which were more at the high school level. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Cmt

  1. Per wp:PUBLICFIGURE, if it turns out any 4-yr higher ed. institution pres. is automatically notable, all bets are off. You can't be part-way pregnant and more/less granularity of allegations would not necessarily translate to more/less libel (which wd not be legally actionable w rgd a public figure in any case).
  2. W rgd nature of allegations as being not much, etc., yes, like most such, 'tis " He said, she said"--he: "Never anything nonconsensual"; she: her (attempted) rape! [3]. (Cf. e.g. Bill Clinton's/Juanita Broaddrick's conflicting accts.)
    -- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not emotionally involved in the whole LDS exposing breast scandal thing. If he is guilty of clergy sexual assault that is between him, his God, the girl, the church and maybe the courts but has no bearing on if he has a page here. He led a 4 year degree granting state owned school. Notable under Prof - full stop. The rest is a side show. Legacypac ( talk) 10:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I agree with earlier comment that Bishop was President of Weber State University, a major university which meets WP:PROF "#6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Therefore, he is a notable figure who should have his own page. He also wrote several books and academic articles, and served as the two-time president of the largest missionary training center for a major world religion. I see no legitimate justification for deleting this page.the truth matters 14:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pblowry ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep This person, especially regarding the rape allegations, are highly notable in a region of the US (Utah/Idaho/Arizona) and more broadly as the \#metoo movement filters through different parts of society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.81.218 ( talk) 23:21, 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 keep. The page has been much improved since originally nominated, and I am convinced by those saying this passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ana Uribe

Ana Uribe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No plausible claim of biographical notability or general notability.

Google search shows that she exists and uses social media. Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. And I'm not even sure we can say this is WP:TOOSOON, because she is 63 years old and has been exhibiting for almost 40 years since she graduated from art college. If this is the most information we can find about her after four decades of work, I don't think she's suddenly going to become more famous in the near future. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: this person is Ana Lucía Uribe, not to be confused with Ana María Uribe, the niece of former Colombian president Álvaro Uribe... she has some notoriety due to drug trafficking charges. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Richard3120: Please add her full name with a source, not least to help readers who may be looking for the other Ana. Thanks. Pam D 08:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Here are some sources Drexel show [4] Mention in Mother Jones article [5] another Philly mural book [6] Art Guide Texas [7] Offering here without interpretation or claims that they do/not establish notability.-- Theredproject ( talk) 19:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I added some sources from Newspapers.com and Project MUSE. Many individuals who have careers in the nineties aren't going to pop up on Google searches. Muralists are especially poorly covered, IMO. She passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
please point out how she meets WP:CREATIVE? I do not see how that is possible. 104.163.147.121 ( talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:Creative is certainly not passed here, as it calls for major widely recognized contributions to the field. The contributions here are not minor and barely recognized, as evidenced by the difficulty to find proper sourcing. 104.163.147.121 ( talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
On second thought, I would strike this !vote but my 121 IP above has expired. She does seem notable now that I look more closely. 104.163.158.37 ( talk) 03:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Earlier comments need revisiting in the light of article improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 01:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Apollos University

Apollos University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:N. All references provided are questionable (from business listings and promotional services). No trusted media coverage to be found in a Google News search. The primary editor seems to have an interest in this institution. Umhsbrek ( talk) 08:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Nothing in existing references suggest that it is a "huge private university". This article fails WP:N and WP:ORG. There is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy WP:GNG. All references used in the current article are either first party, unreliable or trivial mentions. Most of the references are for the accreditation the organization has but they all do not establish the notability of the subject. Please see WP:RS on identifying reliable sources. Umhsbrek ( talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:ARTN to educate yourself away from the popular fallacy that the sources presently in the article have anything whatsoever to do with notability. They do not, which is a fatal flaw in your nomination. You ought to consider withdrawing it. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 19:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It would be a fallacy I was only relying the lack of reliable source in the article to establish non-notability. There are no reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. I quote WP:ARTN, "If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." This is the basis of my nom. Umhsbrek ( talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Please assume good faith and attack the argument not the arguer. I wanted to improve the article but I couldn't find any sources from Google. Most mentions of "Apollos University" are about people who have graduated there but not the university itself or business/university/course listings. Both types of sources do not establish notability. Umhsbrek ( talk) 05:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Everything can be examined and scrutinized within an AfD, including the age and intent of your account. When you bring a nomination, you also understand that you have to build a proper case for deletion, which I have not found here. This includes your record showing that instead of regular edits, you immediately swerved to bring two schools to deletion, suggesting you've been here before and are certainly no new user. Nate • ( chatter) 23:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
If you cared to look at my crosswiki contributions, you would have seen I have done a fair bit of editing on Wikidata. I came across this article there. I have also made it my policy to read as much as possible before contributing on another project. The proper case of deletion has been stated a number of times already, which is that there is no reliable sources to be found publicly available to improve the article. Let's analyze the six results from Google News:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 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. Sandstein 08:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Poonam Jha

Poonam Jha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Casting director of only one notable film and revived a non-notable industry award which is not sufficient and does not establish the notability. The BLP was nominated for speedy deletion back in 2016 by @ AllyD: but apparently tags was removed by the creator. The article has existed for over 1 year without having expanded any further.. Saqib ( talk) 09:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I previously analysed the weakness of the article sources at Talk:Poonam Jha and it has not improved. The sources confirm that the subject has worked as casting director on a TV soap and in that role received an award which does not appear to be notable in itself. Searches are not finding better: not enough for WP:BASIC encyclopaedic notability in my view. AllyD ( talk) 11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per AllyD above and WP:TOOSOON, the subject has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:09, 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 08:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sanjana Banerjee

Sanjana Banerjee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has received some trivial coverage in independent RS but no significant roles in multiple notable films and apparently no large fan base thus clearly fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Saqib ( talk) 09:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Doea a fan base decide the legitimacy of a celebrity? That is a very flimsy argument. And there are various articles on Sanjana Banerjee in the reputed media house like Times of India and also Bengali media. More citations may be added to make this read well. Starlight 09:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadma ( talk • contribs)
Why not? How one can become a celebrity without having a fan base? See the point no. 1 at WP:NACTOR. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:30, 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. As postdlf points out, similar deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events. This one is less detailed, and, notably, is missing Unification Day. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Real dates in fiction

Real dates in fiction (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate list of "real dates" used in fiction. Most of the fiction work uses real dates. (Not Alice in wonderland, it has a different calendar).

I cant see the encyclopaedic value of this article, or any educational value either. Borderline OR. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Way, way on the "indiscriminate" side of any reasonable line that could be drawn. A select few dates from fiction have gained special distinction and become events in their own right, like Festivus and Bloomsday. We could have a list of those, but this isn't that. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:15, 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 and redirect to 2K Sports. Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

PAM Development

PAM Development (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No signs of notability, fails WP:GNG/ WP:CORPDEPTH. Lordtobi ( ✉) 08:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question: Why can't it be merged/redirected to 2K Sports? Regards So Why 10:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    The company was independent for 10 of its 13 years of lifetime, yet we have just about no information on it. The one-liner on the 2K Sports is not quite enough to justify a redirect, as the reader will find out practically nothing if they were sent there. Lordtobi ( ✉) 10:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Well, they will learn that the company was later part of 2K Sports. If we delete the article without a redirect, they won't even learn that. So how is the latter preferable? Regards So Why 11:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Truly a good argument, but I think it should be cleansed of its history so it is not restored over and over by uninformed users (I'm often seeing this on redirect-AfD'd articles that some random users wish to keep against consensus and keep restoring post-closure). I think I'd not be opposed to re-redirecting it afterwards. Lordtobi ( ✉) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Their products were notable to have their own pages and one was licensed from a major (if poor) film and the other licensed a highly popular football player, the company will have more than enough sources out there to sustain an article. 217.43.203.61 ( talk) 19:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:INHERIT, this is not a valid reason to keep the article. There are sources that say that the company developed a game, but there is no actual info about the company. We don't even know who the company was founded by, for example, or when it was bought by Gaia Capital Group (which it was at one point). Lordtobi ( ✉) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - This outlined above is probably the best outcome. As it can't satisfy it's own article, and is later purchased by 2K sports, a redirect is preferable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to and/or merge with 2K Sports. That is most likely the best outcome that could arise as it can't stand on its own. As for deleting and then redirecting, would just semi-protecting (or higher) the redirect suffice? That would (at minimum, depending on level) prevent IP and new editors from reverting it. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 14:53, 9 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. In addition to what has been said below, I will make the following comments. The article is blatantly promotional. It contains elements of copyright infringement, with text copied word for word from a web page about a completely different poet. It contains what appear to be elements of hoax, such as the claim "she is resident Editor Khabrain Manchester UK" which a look at that organisation's web site shows is not true. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Nadia Umber Lodhi

Nadia Umber Lodhi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and WP:JOURNALIST and even lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib ( talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:33, 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. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 06:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Government websites in Sudan

List of Government websites in Sudan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see the purpose of such a list. Saqib ( talk) 08:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:34, 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 keep. Sandstein 08:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yips

Yips (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Slang term for "nervousness" in athletes. This term is sometimes mentioned in articles about underperforming athletes, but is not encyclopedic. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol ( talk) 13:03, 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! 19:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Akilnathan Logeswaran

Akilnathan Logeswaran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Logeswaran)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like a promotional text and clearly Wikipedia:Too soon. Pure highlighting memberships and awards without noticeable impact. -- DonJusto99 ( talk) 13:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Everything mentioned is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, therefore not Wikipedia:Too soon. In what way do you see it as promotional? Everything mentioned has references. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
No real relevance has been highlighted in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Where is the actual encyclopedic pertinence in a cumulation of memberships? The "Publications" mention an estimated 50-100 contributors for a couple of pages of content ( http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Renew_Europe_report_2018.pdf). It clearly seems like a lot of hot air. -- DonJusto99 ( talk) 16:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Clear relevance as the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That one publication has more contributors does not make the article less relevant. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 16:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The second one doesn't even mention him as author. The third one is again a collection of 30-40 contributors. -- DonJusto99 ( talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You are right, I mistakenly added that one to publications. Besides from that the publications are just a small addition to the article. The rest of the article retains validity and significancy according to the Wikipedia guidelines.-- Wedderkop ( talk) 16:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The sockpuppet investigation has been closed with no action: “Unrelated to each other.” -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Why do you think so? There is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources like Forbes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandfunk Nova - to just name a few. Can you further explain your point of view? -- Wedderkop ( talk) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't like multiple relists but I can't pull any consensus out of this. Here's hoping for more input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Again, everything mentioned is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, therefore not Wikipedia:Too soon. In addition, there is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources like Forbes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandfunk Nova. Can you please reason your statement? Malala Yousafzai is just 20 and a relevant political acitivst (with an article since more than six years). Age has no relevance nor is a factor for notability. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 21:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The sole mention I find in Forbes is a listing one year in Forbes 30 Under 30, one of twenty 30 under 30 lists in that Forbes publishes annually. This is not sufficient to source an article, the fact that it is almost the sole available source in English is more of aconfirmation of this being a case of WP:TOOSOON. He has a page in the German-language Wikipedia, which is probably a better fit for an individual who has insufficient notability in the English-speaking world, but, frankly, I scanned the short list of gNEws hits, almost all in German, several quoting him about a notable cat on the campus where he was a student Augsburger Campus-Katze wird zum Facebook-Star others merely essays he wrote for HuffPost, and it made me doubt that he has sufficient notability to support the page on our German version. Page is heavily sourced to outfits he is involved with; there is just not enough independent sourcing to support a page. Delete as PROMO. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your feedback. The general notability guideline explicitly says that sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Therefore German sources count as much in the English-speaking world as English sources. The Süddeutsche Zeitung for example is one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, Deutschlandfunk Nova is part of national German public radio broadcaster Deutschlandradio. The cat story is just a side story. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 00:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
He was, according to page and sources cited, Logeswaran was one of the co-founders of the Munich Hub of the pan-European citizens' movement Stand Up For Europe. That is not a sufficient claim of notability. Nor is are the prizes for youthful activism. Recent efforts oat expansion make this appear to be a clear case of oversourced PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The text being highly promotional, as I already noted myself, does not by itself merit an act of defenestration. If that were the sole criterion, it'd have been quite easy to rid Wikipedia from myriads of ego-boosting, paid-hack-created, fluffery & puffery BLP garbage on arrivistes and related fauna. The question is, and this is how this article is dragged to the stand, whether or not the subject is notable. End of story. Methinks it meets WP:GNG. You might think otherwise; I couldn't possibly comment. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Definitely a talented person in terms of self-marketing. The Global Shapers have around 6,000 members according to my brief internet research, while only very few of that group (Akilnathan Logeswaran included) were smart enough to issue a press release following their acceptance. I am still tending towards delete as I think that a rational reader should take at least a 50% haircut on the achievements stated in this promotional article. -- 2.126.23.98 ( talk) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your feedback 2.126.23.98. I don't know how you can "still" tend towards something, as I haven't seen your IP somewhere else in the comments, but I also have not seen any arguments why this article should be deleted. As The Gnome stated, the question is if this article meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage is given, secondary sources are reliable and independent. Therfore this person is notable as defined by Wikipedia:Notability. I haven't seen one comment in this whole discussion that would question this. I understand if someone personally thinks, this person is to young or too self-promotional. But this is not the question for this discussion. Therefore still strong keep. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 22:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I think the word "still" was meant in the light of the other postings and ongoing discussion. That being said, it seems that every third posting in this thread is from "Wedderkop". A defence by one single user to keep an article is fine 2-3 times, but posting the same arguments after almost each and every comment adds some bias to the discussion for new readers. In my view, the article does not meet the notability guidelines and many points are just "nominations" (not actual awards) and "memberships". The German Wikipedia should be sufficient for this case, not need to have an English article. -- 90.221.107.15 ( talk) 07:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Third posting in a row from a Sky Broadband IP with no other postings. Still no valid arguments. Apparent lack of interest by Wikipdia users in a further discussion on this topic does not indicate anything at all. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 23:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
That is a null and void argument: There exist many Wikipedia articles, for better or worse, about persons whose sole purpose in life is self-promotion! Did I hear you say kardashian? Well, gesundheit. Self-promotional behavior that results in Wiki-acceptable notability is not grounds for deletion. I did not make the rules. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - I read the sources and understand a little German, and so was able to also review the sourcing at his article on the German Wikipedia.[ Logeswaran] Overall, there's not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. There's no indepth profile of him - more just brief mentions and lists that he is on, but with little biographical info that would put this into the keep territory for me. Likely a WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:14, 9 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 is no consensus as to the usefulness of the list. Some find it utterly redundant, others find it useful for certain types of searches. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of living British princes and princesses

List of living British princes and princesses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Content forking, articles on the same subject should not be duplicated; we already have lists of British princes and princesses and a list of living British royals. DrKay ( talk) 16:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Apart from there not being huge numbers, the tables in the other articles are sortable. So, if you want to list the living ones, you simply click on the appropriate table header and they will all be listed at the top. DrKay ( talk) 22:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:CFORK says as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Szzuk ( talk) 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
All the other articles are well-within the article size guidelines. There is no need for a split on those grounds. Besides, this isn't a split: it's a fork. DrKay ( talk) 22:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The spin off is acceptable because it allows more detail about individual living princes and princesses than could practically be afforded in the large existing lists. Szzuk ( talk) 22:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Based on your logic we could also create lists of living former presidents and first ladies of all the countries because it's too "hard" for the readers to scroll down a few inches or change the table headers!! This article is not a spin-off, it's a fork. Details about the living members are already available at " British royal family" thus there's no point in keeping this article. Keivan.f Talk 00:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
By that logic there is no good reason for Princes and Princesses to be in separate articles. Feel free to merge them and then we can discuss how hard it is to scroll and change headers. Szzuk ( talk) 10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Why are you turning this into a gender-based issue? The argument here is that the current articles are sufficient enough and cover the essential material, yet they are not that huge to mislead the readers and get them confused. Keivan.f Talk 23:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Any relevant information can be merged into the existing articles. British royal family is only 18kB, so can easily stand expansion and in no conceivable way could be considered a "large existing list". DrKay ( talk) 07:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
But not everyone wants to read about the entire British Royal family, they want to read about the princes and princesses. Szzuk ( talk) 10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Apart from the Queen, the list is the same. DrKay ( talk) 10:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I have no issue with a rename, is it something you would agree to? Szzuk ( talk) 11:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm not sure I see why British princes are in a separate article from British princesses in the first place. WP:LISTN states that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists." Given how vague the guidelines are, in this case the only thing to do is think about it logically. For example, is this article useful and does it fulfill Wikipedia's goal as a source of all knowledge? I can certainly see myself finding this list more useful than separate articles about princes and princesses, therefore I believe this article should be kept. Lonehexagon ( talk) 08:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC):: reply
They're not separate. They're at British royal family#Members. DrKay ( talk) 08:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That's not a list of princes and princesses. Lonehexagon ( talk) 03:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep. Obviously, I'm all for keeping it, and I will say that if accepted I will definitely work on improving the sources. ANewStarWillRise ( talk) 05:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Albert Blithe

Albert Blithe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Albert Blithe was an NCO in the U.S. Army. He served in World War II, the Korean War, and the Cold War. He was in E Company, 506th PIR during World War II until wounded in Normandy. He was discharged after the War but later re-enlisted and served until 1967, dying on active duty. Blithe rose to he rank of master sergeant; his highest award was the Silver Star. Neither Blithe's rank nor his highest award qualify him for inclusion under WP:SOLDIER. His only "claim to fame" is being mis-identified by the producers of the Band of Brothers mini-series as having died in 1948. He has no general notability. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possibly merge the notable bit into the Band of Brothers article. A before search brings up a lot of Band of Brothers fan websites. Not notable under WP:SOLDIER. I appreciate the detailed reasoning given by nominator. SportingFlyer talk 05:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG as there is good detailed coverage of his life and so his rank is irrelevant. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:SOLDIER, like all other special-purpose notability standards, is a supplement to the WP:GNG, not a replacement. If Blithe passes the GNG -- and I see TWO book references listed, something the nominator failed to mention -- then it's not a slamdunk. -- Calton | Talk 15:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • In those book references, is there a mention of Blythe having done something notable?-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Why don't YOU actually answer that clumsy rhetorical question? -- Calton | Talk 02:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Okay, the answer is no, there isn't. And the question wasn't rhetorical. Blythe didn't do anything particularly notable. I've read the books (or excerpts where the whole book wasn't available to me). The fact that the same information gets regurgitated over and over doesn't make an individual any more notable. Blythe jumped into Normandy, got shot, was evacuated and died in '48 except he didn't really die. He served in Korea and earned a silver star but we have no details. He was a career soldier. He died on active duty of a perforated ulcer. Would you like to add anything?-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
        • It isn't what he did but rather that his notability stems from where others have written about him. The mistaken history is an issue of notability itself. What did this one do? Seems to be much less than Blithe...see why that line of questioning is a slippery slope?
           —  Berean Hunter (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
          • I don't think Richard Colvin Cox did anything notable; the page is a better tale about Maihafer or Jacobs. Getting back to Blithe, if ninety-nine people said in ninety-nine books that they knew him before and during Normandy, that doesn't make him notable because he's not well known for something he did. He's just a guy whose fellow unit members lost track of him. He attended the first reunion of the division association and no one said, "Hey, I thought you were dead." We wouldn't have pages on any of these guys if they hadn't inherited their fame from the TV series, possibly even Sink (We have a lot of red-linked generals). Almost all of the guys who appeared in the books had their "life stories featured..." No, they didn't. The books are filled with anecdotes about the men.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The context of coverage matters too. The article notes: "Blithe's life story was featured in the 2010 book A Company of Heroes: Personal Memories about the Real Band of Brothers and the Legacy They Left Us." "Featured" needs clarification: was he mentioned in passing or did he have a whole chapter? Also, and importantly, the Amazon.com description notes: "Compiled from the veterans' notes, journals, letters, photographs, and the author's personally conducted interviews with the surviving contributors, this unique volume features the never-before-told stories of the Band of Brothers from more than twenty children and other family members". Thus, this book appears to primarily consist of primary sources and non-independent sources, which do not count much towards notability. If WP:GNG is not significantly satisfied, then a redirect E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) would be preferable to deletion. --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
      • A certain dose of common sense would help when considering context. What you think of as a primary source is actually the reliable source here as it was used to refute Ambrose's book. It's completely valid and has been vetted so you can't dismiss it that easily...its viewpoints prevail and not Ambrose's/Warren's.
         —  Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GNG. In addition to the book by Stephen Ambrose, the following books discuss him and lend to his notability:
    • A Company of Heroes by Brotherton
    • Beyond Band of Brothers by Winters
    • Brothers in Battle, Best of Friends by Guarnere and Heffron
    • In the Footsteps of the Band of Brothers by Alexander (another secondary source)
    • We Who Are Alive and Remain: Untold Stories from the Band of Brothers by Brotherton
       —  Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't find significant mention of Blithe in newspapers.com or elsewhere beyond BoB-universe material. Smmurphy( Talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
My non-!vote comes from a different view from those above and as I haven't written out my view on BoB articles for a while, I'll write it here. After reading more about the BoB-verse, I came to view Ambrose's role not to be one of historian, but of something slightly different. In particular, Ambrose's innacuracies do not seem to be accidental, but represent a number of different things, including an interest in telling a compelling story and an interest in representing his (Ambrose's) point of view. Among the former could be writing that Blithe died in 1948 - Ambrose did not bother checking records on this, an ommission in favor of storytelling which a historian would likely have double checked. More allarming, and not so related to Blithe, are Ambrose's own prejudices and discriminatory feelings (this issue has left a serious tinge on my reading of Ambrose as a NPOV source). Having thought about these issues, my position is that Ambrose is a story-teller and his characters are based on real people but his books are not academic-quality histories. With this in mind, books related to his (in shorthand, these are a part of the BoB-verse) share in the same issues to some degree. There are authors who cover the same subject but do not follow Ambrose, Ian Gardner is an example (Gardner may have his own problems, but to me they seem independent of Ambrose's). There are also articles about the books or shows which discuss the individuals as characters in the miniseries, which if in-depth enough could lead to their suitability in the same way other fictional or semi-fictional characters are suitable for articles (but I haven't seen this). In any case, for a character in the BoB-verse to have sources required for a NPOV article, I think there should be coverage by people who are outside of the BoB-verse (for instance, a historian who publishes in an academic press and uses footnotes would be nice; Brotherton, Winters, Ambrose, Garner, etc all fail on this point, I think) or at least who write from a perspective clearly independent of Ambrose (Gardner is my example). For BoB figures who do not meet this standard, I think the pages are fine, but they fail NPOV. I hesitate to support such an article at AfD if I cannot improve the article, and thus I try to find independent, in-depth coverage. If I don't find it, I tend to make a note to that effect and move on.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I disagree with the view that Blithe shouldn't have an article because he didn't do anything wiktionary:notable. I don't care if multiple sources are accidental or inherited, if sources exist that allow a NPOV, NOR, V article, I think it is suitable for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I do not feel Ambrose is sufficiently NPOV for his writing and writing derived from his to be clearly NPOV. On yet another hand, I do not feel that Ambrose's issues are so severe that articles based on his writing are obviously not suitable. In such a situation, I actively abstain. Smmurphy( Talk) 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All the references seem to relate to Band of Brothers. No independent notability. Just another one of the soldiers mentioned in that and written about since because they were mentioned in that. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - the cited book coverage combined with media coverage of his character in the series makes this barely meet WP:GNG and so it's a weak keep. Here's some of the info from one of the books for those of you who'd like to read it. Perhaps this would be a better source for the info since it's more accessible. [ [18]]. Here's another brief mention in another book that's not listed: [ [19]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dipak Nandy

Dipak Nandy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little in the way of WP:RS to support this article, with 2 of the 3 pages of search results being WordPress websites. He appears to have written two books, but they do not appear to have many (if any) reviews of a notable nature. There is very little reliable and secondary available about him. Article is also in rough shape style/writing wise.

Based on this, he does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NACADEMIC. Your thoughts are welcome. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 04:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 04:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nandy was a very notable person in his time, but not many of the relevant sources are on line. I've improved the article, but the most important sources - the National Archives - are not on line. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable British political theorist of the '60s. This stuff is fairly obscure, unless you're looking at the UK left wing of the '60s, but he was important within that. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'd expect more recognition given the nature of the topic for WP notability to be ascertained. Btw, the topic is not really obscure, and has been highly socially relevant for years. This is a possible re-direct, as a section in daughter's WP page - Lisa Nandy. Independently, the subject does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.-- Eric Yurken ( talk) 15:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • He wrote 7 books and was the subject of two filmed documentaries. He was appointed by the government as an expert on equal opportunities. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 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. A redirect to wherever is deemed most appropriate can be created editorially. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Korugar

Korugar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How many of these things are there?!! LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 07:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

comment I am not ready to !vote on this one, but the BEFORE seems less convincing than for other articles flagged by this nom. Korugar seems to be discussed in numerous independent sources, mostly books, and in-universe style is grounds for SOFIXIT, not for deletion. I suggest that others look into the matter before !voting. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with Newimpartial. I think adding to the article; and making it clear that this is a page about how Korguar has been invented, published on, and discussed, would be a better way to problems with the article. Ryan shell ( talk) 19:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Sinestro. Pretty much all real-world notability for the planet comes from this character. Argento Surfer ( talk) 20:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Zap with a delete ray It is unclear whether this article should redirect to Sinestro, Sinestro Corps, or his successors. Therefore it is better off simply deleted for being non-notable comicbook fancruft. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 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.
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 New South Wales Police Force. J04n( talk page) 15:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Security Industry Registry

AfDs for this article:
Security Industry Registry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kept back in 2007, when standards for organizations were lower. This isn't even an organization, it's a branch of a police force with no particular significance I can see. No reliable sources for notability -- just directory information,esxcept for one recent article [20]. I'm not sure that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Spinningspark please note that the referenced "Australian Police" is not any official law enforcement agency or associated entity in Australia. See their disclaimer for example. Aoziwe ( talk) 08:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 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. Sandstein 08:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Cynthia Ayoub

Cynthia Ayoub (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and even lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. A promotional autobio apparently created by the subject. finalist in Miss Universe Canada 2016 does not makes one notable. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This article is not notable because it is an autobio which seems to promote herself and her accomplishement to show people that she did more than to just be Miss Universe Canada 2016. And we don't have any reliable sources about her initiatives. Irma2403 ( talk) 06:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:05, 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. Sandstein 07:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thom Dickerson

Thom Dickerson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-term news reporter, undoubtedly doing a good job but without any indication of notability. The sources do not constitute significant coverage and the general notability criteria are not met. A clip of his swearing on camera became popular on YouTube for a while, but that is not grounds for notability since reliable independent sources have not discussed it. bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The RFK journalism award is a notable national award, which establishes the subject's notability. That he won it in the 1970s means that documentation is hard to find - it's probably only available in newspaper morgues or behind paywalls 40 years later, but it is not a type of notability that would fade over time. The Youtube clip came very late in his life, after he had stopped reporting for television. Risker ( talk) 00:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Winning the RFK award would probably be a real claim to notability although the Wikipedia article about the award is only sourced to its own website. However, Dickerson was not a "winner" of the award, but the recipient of a "special citation" which appears to be the third level (below "winner" and "honourable mention"). There is a Washington Post article confirming this: [26]. Since that is the only claim to notability I am still not convinced, I'm afraid. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Despite the award confusion (thank you Bonadea) Dickerson remains a popular part of internet popularity, and an important character for many older people living in Houston. Although not cited, Dickerson hosted an outdoors segment during his media career which was very well received. Any search of the said name, "WTF Reporter" or "Tailgate Jones" will yield results which prove Thom Dickerson's notability in his later years. YouTube popularity can be an as legitimate reason for notability as an award. Your thoughts please. --collectr( u • t • c) 18:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It can be, but personally I can't see it being the case here. Notability is not measured in Google hits or number of views of a YT clip, unless those hits or views have been discussed in independent reliable sources. The WTF clip is one case of a reporter being open and honest on camera which is a good thing of course, but that isn't part of any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. If a Google search would actually yield reliable secondary sources, that's great! I have not been able to find them, but maybe that's because of where I am located, so if you have access to such sources it would be excellent if they were added to the article. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply


Thanks. I've tried using some different search engines, but I haven't come up with many legitimate references for the YT aspect. What I did find, were original recordings of some of Thom's segments. I've attached these as appropriately on the article. I'm happy to disregard the YT aspect. I still believe that this reporter deserves attention for a very long and interesting career, and I feel that this Wikipedia page would act well to bring together all of the sources. 25+ years in a reputable reporting agency (appearing on a regular basis) is an impressive feat alone. The YT videos add to the notability. I appreciate your discussion on the matter as I think it's important to have a devil's advocate. --collectr( u • t • c) 23:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:18, 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. Sandstein 07:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sofya Polyakov

Sofya Polyakov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability beyond The Noun Project, of which she is the CEO and a co-founder. Barte ( talk) 04:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:46, 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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Minal Sampath

Minal Sampath (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

inadequate evidence of notability Does not meet WP:PROF, no evidence of major role in any of the projects. A gold medal school award is not a notable award. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:19, 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 Green National Committee#Steering Committee. Consensus is that notability criteria are not met, but there is a sensible redirect target. Sandstein 07:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Farheen Hakeem

Farheen Hakeem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:BLP1E, WP:SOURCE, WP:BASIC, WP:1E, and WP:NPOL. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better. There is a potentially valid notability claim here as a co-chair of a political party, if she can be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it — but there's nothing here that hands her an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and with two sources that namecheck her existence in the process of being about subjects other than her, one piece of purely local coverage in her own hometown media and just one source that's substantively about her and more than local, that's not enough sourcing to clear GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 13:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In a case like this, my preference would be to find a suitable merge target; however, the most suitable one would likely be Green National Committee#Steering Committee, which would only need Hakeem's name, dates of service, and an associated source/reference. The main obstacle to clearing WP:GNG seems to be the criterion for significant coverage. There are plenty of passing and/or trivial mentions in reliable sources (e.g. [27], [28], and [29]). The only independent source with significant coverage that I could find was [30], which is already cited in the article. ( [31] and [32] also provide non-trivial coverage, but are not independent.) ebbillings ( talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete I saw this and thought hijabi-with-serious-political-accomplishments easy keep. But I have come around to Nom's perspective. News coverage and accomplishments are scanty/minor, and petered out several years ago. note that some search hits in American newspapers on "Farheen Hakeem" are unrelated to this individual. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:39, 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. Sandstein 07:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Steven Christopher Parker

Steven Christopher Parker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:GNG notability that is evident by in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article is about an actor who does not appear to have had any very notable roles. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:01, 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. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Tracy Beaker (disambiguation)

Tracy Beaker (disambiguation) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a proper subject for a disambiguation page; rather than listing unrelated topics that happen to share the same name (like Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology), this page merely lists installments in a franchise, for which there is no evidence that every installment is known solely by the name of the character. An existing page at Tracy Beaker (franchise) was improperly blanked to be redirected here, but this goes against the outcome of a previous AfD, so discussion and consensus are needed to take such a step. bd2412 T 01:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I Oppose. The Tracy Beaker (franchise) merely just was a copy of information that already existed on List of The Story of Tracy Beaker episodes, List of The Dumping Ground episodes, List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes and List of Tracy Beaker series characters and this franchise page only has TV information touches on the show...there's nothing on the books, film, spin off's etc. And more to the point, the main pages struggle with references as it is because at the end of it all, primarily just children watch it, the first book was from the 90s before the internet and the first series was 16 years ago. And you've said "no evidence is known solely by the name of the character"-this new page has done nothing more except swap "disambiguation" for "franchise" still with Tracy Beaker.
Tracy Beaker Returns, The Dumping Ground and The Story of Tracy Beaker, book and TV pages, already link in the infobox and I'm personally working on improving them. And another thing: you say they're "unrelated", but same universe, but a franchise page practically "relates" them whilst the disambiguation page merely puts The Dumping Ground under "see also" not "may refer to". Grangehilllover ( talk) 06:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Please review WP:DABCONCEPT. Differently-named installments of a single franchise are not ambiguous to each other. You have not made a single point relevant to the disambiguation problem. Please also read my rationale more carefully. I did not say that these are "unrelated", I said exactly the opposite of that; it is precisely because they are related that they are not ambiguous topics. bd2412 T 11:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ BD2412: I left a message on your talk page, but if you didn't get it. Because I'm heavily involved in editing Tracy Beaker, an awful lot of vandalism occurs, but I'm going to some how work with the franchise page, but we need the disambiguation page

. Grangehilllover ( talk) 11:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I have replied there. Perhaps a set index article would be appropriate here (see Wikipedia:Set index articles), but not a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 11:51, 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. Sandstein 07:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You Are My Friend (2018 film)

You Are My Friend (2018 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this future film has a decent amount of news coverage, it appears to me that it is simply too soon for this film to have an article. There is only a single cast member announced (Hanks as Rogers) and it doesn't appear that they have started filming anything yet. I would suggest deleting for now and re-creating the article as the movie gets closer to an actual release. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 01:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:14, 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. czar 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Anna Nova

AfDs for this article:
Anna Nova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award category - "Venus Award - Best German Starlet" is not significant.

First AfD closed as "Delete" in 2007, and the subject has not become more notable since. The other AfD, for "Anna Novakov", in unrelated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:07, 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 keep. The discussion is overwhelmingly in favour of "keep." Editors in the discussion have mentioned that the article needs an overhaul, not deletion. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor Talk 15:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

JS Kabylie in Africa

JS Kabylie in Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be repeat certain paragraphs from the JS Kabylie article and then add a number of unsourced tables of results. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK seems to apply here. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 00:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 06:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources are collating information on their African results in this way, to warrant this stand-alone article. The article should be redirected back to the club page. Eldumpo ( talk) 08:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not sufficient content to have a separate article, mention at main page and have this as redirect. Giant Snowman 08:26, 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. J04n( talk page) 15:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan

List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of international cricket centuries by Tamim Iqbal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Agreed number of international centuries for a stand alone list is 25. Shakib Al Hasan has only scored 12 while Tamim Iqbal has 18. Suggest merging the information into the parent articles and deleting these lists. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep This Article looks likes better with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket notably guidelines. Not required to comparison with other century. Riazul Islam BD ( talk) 12:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Ianblair23: You have mentioned that a list article relating to a cricketer can be accepted if he has scored at least 25 international centuries. Apart from Shakib and Tamim Iqbal there is another article that should be concerned regarding the number of international centuries - List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga Tharanga also has scored only 18 international centuries and when compared to the biographical topics of both Shakib Al Hasan and Tamim Iqbal, the content in Upul Tharanga's biography is comparatively less. So need to AfD the List of centuries scored by Upul Tharanga before heading into this. Abishe ( talk) 09:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete – I agree entirely with the comments by Ianblair23 and think the list should be deleted. It's too short and if retained (would not perhaps set a precedent for but) would begin a trend for even shorter lists and you would end up with one about someone who scored a single half-century sometime. 25 is a milestone in this context and the minimum of 25 is sensible. Joe Root has reached 24 centuries and his list should be created when he scores his 25th, but not yet. Thanks. Protea caffra ( talk) 09:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete both, no real need for these, they aren't long enough to warrant a spinout. Szzuk ( talk) 10:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The extra cricketers added after the afd began should be removed or this might close as a procedural keep. Szzuk ( talk) 07:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay, Szzuk, I'll start afresh with those. Thanks for the heads-up. Appreciated. Protea caffra ( talk) 07:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - Rather than looking to delete only this list, a limit should be introduced for the minimum number of centuries to keep a stand alone list of centuries for a specific cricket player. Currently there are many such lists with different number of centuries in Wikipedia. See List of international cricket centuries by Rohit Sharma, List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman, List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim etc. Jumbojelly500 ( talk) 04:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jumbojelly500, the minimum is 25 as discussed above. Does that help you? Protea caffra ( talk) 23:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I am adding the three you name to another list for deletion. All under the minimum. Protea caffra ( talk) 23:07, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gina Ortiz Jones

Gina Ortiz Jones (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep I created this article because I was searching for info about Ortiz Jones. WP:NPOL has an exception that I think she solidly meets: substantial coverage and interest from RS that are independent of the politician, for example Time Magazine, Teen Vogue, HuffPo, Filipino-interest publications, and more. She is also getting coverage because she has been endorsed by DFA, Emily's List, and quite a few more organizations that value her salty, intelligent comments plus her being Asian, veteran, gay, grown up in poverty, and more. Also, thanks to suggestion from I dream of horses, the article may meet WP:GNG based on the many independent news articles already written about Ortiz Jones. HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:49, 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. czar 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Finn (police dog)

Finn (police dog) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dog being used as a coathanger for promotion of a campaign. As WP:BIO1E nearly says, dogs known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Tagishsimon ( talk) 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:29, 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.

April Fools' Day nominations

For joke nominations, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2018.
  1. ^ https://kotaku.com/tag/ubiworkshop
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_1&oldid=1142617282"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 31 March 2 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello in different laguages

Hello in different laguages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, including a language dictionary. This content might be more suitable for Wikiversity, since it appears to be written as a guide, which is not the tone we strive for on Wikipedia. The references are all pretty much just Google Translate, which is not sufficient for providing the nuance/accuracy of a more reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions because misery loves company. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:24, 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 speedy redirect to Ubisoft. WP:SNOW redirect, seems cut and dry. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

UbiWorkshop

UbiWorkshop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Ubi Workshop" appears to relate to Ubisoft's merchandise store. I couldn't find any reliable sources (or any sources for that matter) detailing exclusively a short film company by this name, but an in-house merchandising team (far from a subsidiary). The only source presently in the article appears to be unreliable AND dead. Smells like original research to me. In any other case, it would definetly fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Could perhaps be turned into a one-liner on Ubisoft Montreal and redirect there. [1] Lordtobi ( ✉) 22:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:36, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Chihiro Hasegawa

Chihiro Hasegawa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Agree with nom, the sources (while botched in their own right) and not independent of the subject matter nor reliable. Considering the subject matter, this seems to be a BLP violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 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 Jungle de Ikou!#Natsumi Rokudo/Mii. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Mii (Jungle de Ikou!)

AfDs for this article:
Mii (Jungle de Ikou!) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD's several years ago. Has been re-created and still has no established notability. Current references are imdb and what appear to be two fansites. Was returned to redirect, but recent creator thinks the current sourcing is enough to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect - Character from a fairly obscure and old OVA series, that has no real-world significance or coverage. At best, maybe a redirect, but considering the series is mostly forgotten now and thus the title might not longer be a viable search term, I wouldn't be opposed to a delete. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect. The sources cited are 1) IMDb (Not RS), 2) MyAnimeList (Not RS), 3) Fan site that is mainly just a bunch of screen shot pictures (Not really RS) with no content to analyze the character. There is no notability shown for the character independent of the series. Editor would be better served updating the descriptions on the Jungle de Ikou! page for all the characters and referencing those to episodes or RS websites. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:19, 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 Withdrawn by nominator after stubification by another editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard Houghton (died 1559)

Richard Houghton (died 1559) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The contents of the article do not relate to the subject, but, I suppose, to one of his ancestors and appear to have been copied and pasted. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Rathfelder: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination. Pam D 22:47, 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) 00:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Tudela FC Los Angeles

Tudela FC Los Angeles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. A Google search yields nothing more than their site, videos, blog posts and social media profiles. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 21:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 21:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 10:25, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

SpaceCrafter

SpaceCrafter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no references and has no indication of notability. And hence, doesn't qualify WP:NSOFTWARE.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:51, 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. Sandstein 07:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of open access repositories in India

List of open access repositories in India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory. The list consists of a bunch of websites of non notable repositories. More of a project for Wikiversity Ajf773 ( talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons: reply

List of open access repositories in Australia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of open access repositories in Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of open access repositories in the Americas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of open access repositories in Croatia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of open access repositories in Canada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Looking at the two policies that would seem to apply, WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:Directory (specifically, points 1, 4 and 7), I don't this really violates those. These are lists of open repositories of information. I wouldn't call that "loosely associated topics" in any way. They are pointers to other reference materials. My take is that the policies are designed to prevent business listings, pure statistics, current events listings, and the like. While we need to be careful with the criteria, I feel this topics are acceptable for an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Oa01 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

  • The SA with NC, means that the derivatives have to also include the -NC. So posting it here claiming that NC does not apply is a copyright infringement. It may not be an infringement to put it on Wikipedia, but claiming the wrong license makes it so. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete India. WP:NOTDIR. Also content will eternally fail the inclusion criteria WP:CSC so list would just be a blank page. Cesdeva ( talk) 18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all these pages are just replications of the information available at http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php . While they appear up to date now (all created on 1st of April), I can't see how they will stay concurrent with the source data. The OpenDOAR wiki page exists as an entry point to this database. Teraplane ( talk) 22:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. However, if it is a suitable project for Wikiversity, deletion should wait until it's moved there. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No opinoin, but not a copyright vio I do not see any copyright violation. It is okay to copy lists like this, even if there is a claim of copyright, when the information is not eligible for copyright. A "list of obvious things by region" is not copyrightable because it is a statement of facts. If the list were "recommended things by region" or a matter of someone's choice rather than fact, then it could be copyrighted. Wikipedia does not have clear policy on list like this. However, all of this information can go into Wikidata, and each of these organizations can have a Wikidata item. Although the functionality does not exist now in Wikipedia, I think that soon somehow Wikimedia projects will make it much easier for anyone to generate and share lists of things like if they are in Wikidata. I recommend considering Wikidata as a place for this regardless of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per WP:SAL, these don't seem to fit the stand-alone list criteria. Natureium ( talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all I don't see why we should copy lists maintained by others, copyvio or not. This kind of linkfarms is also being added to other articles (see for example Open access in Italy). -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:23, 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 Keep. ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Aqualandia

Aqualandia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, let alone being a non-notable waterpark Lewwitness ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 19:55, 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 keep. Consensus is that she meets WP:PROF (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Susan M. Dray

Susan M. Dray (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had originally put this up for speedy deletion, but the author came in and added sources. This said, the sources provided are all biographical sources and at least one article that the subject has written. My assertion is that this is not demonstrating notability as per WP:GNG and the sources are insufficient as per WP:RS. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 17:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Author: I am still not sure why this user thinks the sources are "questionable"? There are lesser traces of this person online and so these are the best sources I could find. In addition, could he please elaborate as to which exact sources are deemed "questionable", most of them are directly from organization's websites and the person's official CV. Once he does, I will go through each one of them to prove their reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsh6 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Kumarsh6: They are unreliable exactly because they are from the person's CV. Fails WP:RS/SPS, w.r.t. "the article is not based primarily on such sources." deadwikipedian ( talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
CVs are allowable for factual and uncontroversial information about the subject (like her education and employment history). They do not contribute to notability, but in cases such as this one, notability is based on the criteria of WP:PROF, not on the availability of sources. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:47, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

CID Vs Adaalat – Karmyudh

CID Vs Adaalat – Karmyudh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, non-reliably sourced article about a crossover television episode fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. The only provided reference is from a non-reliable source and the article was originally started with a copyright violation. Aspects ( talk) 17:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:49, 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 speedy delete. G5 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A23101990/Archive SmartSE ( talk) 16:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Knovos(Software company)

Knovos(Software company) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source to establish notability, fails WP:NCORP. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I am closing as G5. SmartSE ( talk) 16:12, 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. Per WP:NBAND #6 as stated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Zhou Jieqiong

Zhou Jieqiong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable person, fails WP:NMUSIC – the article was restored with an explanation that she is receiving a "significant individual coverage in China and Korea", which is not supported by sources in this article since this whole article is about the band she is a member of, all sources are just trivial and short, nothing in-depth, and she has ZERO solo releases in music. Snowflake91 ( talk) 16:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Keep – Article needs work, but her notability is beyond reasonable doubt. As the only Chinese member of two popular K-pop bands who often performs solo on Chinese TV shows, Zhou Jieqiong is very famous in China and South Korea. A Baidu search of her Chinese name yields a whopping 4 million pages, and a Baidu News search returns more than 200 recent news articles about her, with significant coverage from numerous media outlets. - Zanhe ( talk) 16:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Can you give a few examples of those in-depth news coverage? A short articles "Zhou Jieqiong did that", "Zhou Jieqiong did this", "Zhou Jieqiong will guest on a TV show there and there" etc. is not a significant coverage. Snowflake91 ( talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
See e.g. IJQ starbase, 360.cn, and the news site Edushi has a news portal dedicated to her. - Zanhe ( talk) 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Pristin: per above - individual has not acted nor have they released any solo music. Abdotorg ( talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Makes no sense to redirect to Pristin while ignoring her significant career with I.O.I. Besides, many members of I.O.I have individual articles. - Zanhe ( talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason; yes, some of those articles about IOI members (especially Yeonjung) probably doesnt meet criterias, you can AFD them if you want. And what is her "significant" career with IOI? Simply being a member of the band does not make her notable, no matter how popular the group is. Snowflake91 ( talk) 17:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Of course simply being a member of the band does not make her notable. But didn't I already give you evidence of WP:SIGCOV above? - Zanhe ( talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Note that before nominating an article for deletion, checks such as a search for sources should be performed per WP:BEFORE, and simple news searches would reveal numerous sources - e.g. in Chinese and Korean. She qualifies under WP:NBAND #6 as a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. There is no requirement for solo releases nor for having acted. Hzh ( talk) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Good point. Besides, she does act as a dance coach on the popular reality show Idol Producer. - Zanhe ( talk) 18:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Results on search engines are not relevant, there can be only a few results in reliable media, but all of them could be an in-depth coverage of the person with many details; there can also be a huge number of results, but however, all of them are just a short routine / trivial reports of her (or her group) activity, like in this case. And that #6 criteria has been discussed a lot on the talk page, it even reads "Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution", and how do you determine if she was just "a member" or a "prominent member" of the large group as I.O.I, she didnt even make top 5 in voting and was not a lead singer of the group either, so why is she a "reasonably prominent member" ? Snowflake91 ( talk) 19:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If you want to question the suggestion given in WP:AFD on what to do when starting an AfD and why you are right to ignore its guidelines, I'd suggest you do it in the talk page there, not here. I'm not sure you have checked the hundreds of news sources to say "all of them are just a short routine / trivial reports", given that first few pages already contain news article that cannot said to be short. Also that "reasonably prominent" would imply that it includes members who are not necessarily the most prominent, which you have arbitrarily cut off at top 5, perhaps you should explain why first. Hzh ( talk) 23:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, all of them are trivial random reports of what she was doing – "Pristin members will sign an endorsement deal with the cosmetic company", "Jieqiong was spotted at the airport wearing this", "Jieqiong posted this on instagram", "Jieqiong will appear on a tv game show as a guest" and that kind of fancruft reports. While the chinese sources – pretty much every single Chinese result are just a short reports/reviews of Idol Producer episodes, where she is mentioned as a cast member. Do you know what is a "significant, in-depth" cover of the person? Something like this, and not trivial reports in 4-5 sentences like those Korean/Chinese news articles. Snowflake91 ( talk) 09:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It is clear that you haven't actually read much of the articles. I only glanced through a small number out of the hundreds of news links, and they show that she plays major roles in a few TV shows (one show is on wardrobe, perhaps that is what you refer to what talking about what she is wearing), and therefore she also qualifies under WP:ENTERTAINER #1 for significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The sources you dismissed like this [1] in fact show why she qualifies because of the prominent roles she has in those shows, they are not just trivial passing mentions. I hardly know who she is because I don't pay much attention to modern Chinese or Korean pop culture, but just going through the sources it is clear that she qualifies under multiple criteria. Hzh ( talk) 12:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Snowflake91, you asked for evidence of sigcov, and I gave you multiple articles from mainstream entertainment and news websites above, yet you still repeatedly claim there's no sigcov. This is a typical case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop. - Zanhe ( talk) 14:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
See those GNG criterias again – I cant help if you cant distinguish between "Coverage" and "Significant coverage". Again, none of those mainstream entertainment sites you listed are covering her in-depth, we had many AfDs for K-pop group members and the articles for persons with zero solo musical releases were always deleted, if thats the case, then every single member of any K-pop group could have an own article, because all of them would get a lot of results on search engines (mostly trivial mentioning of their activity – K-pop is so huge, that you would literally get dozens of articles if one random member would just dye their hair or something like that), but that doesnt mean that the subject is covered in-depth. Snowflake91 ( talk) 15:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Pristin: per above - I went through all links that would load, so far no in-depth coverage - just passing mention in results of the group or Idol Producer. With no solo exposure and no significant roles, it's just typical Kpop member as usually. Agree with Snowflake91 here. Evaders99 ( talk) 02:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:45, 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Irina Bagration-Gruzinsky

Irina Bagration-Gruzinsky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Non notable 14 year old daughter of Ana Bagration-Gruzinsky notability is not inherited, the sources are a blog and Facebook. No in-depth coverage. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Theroadislong ( talk) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:39, 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 07:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Independence of Azerbaijan

Independence of Azerbaijan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article looks a bit Forky and I think any material here should be merged with what ever article [Declaration of Independence (Azerbaijan)] [Azerbaijan Democratic Republic] [This is a good article. Follow the link for more information. Listen to this article Azerbaijan] maybe most appropriate, I am really not seeing what purpose this article serves. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This is bringing together two unrelated states occupying the same territory: a republic 1918-9 from the break up of the Russian Empire and which later federated into USSR and a successor republic to USSR. I feel sure that we have adequate articles on each without needing this one too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: an unneeded split of the history of Azerbaijan. Two unrelated entities do not make sense being placed together like this. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:37, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Heavenkid

Heavenkid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as it stands is a collection of self-promoting links. Virtually no third party reference to verify notability. The original PROD was removed by a major editor of the article. COI is suspected. Mys_721tx ( talk) 10:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The only non NTD reference is a press release from a film festival. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 10:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:28, 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 no consensus. Not much interest either, at this point no reason to re-list. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bob Halloran (ABC sportscaster)

Bob Halloran (ABC sportscaster) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails notability threshold under GNG and JOURNALIST. He is one of many, many local US TV News/Sports/Weather on-air talent. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 19:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stongest possible keep there is LOTS of coverage of this individual's work as a sportscaster, his books, and his illness. Here's just one example. His Micky Ward book helped inspire the movie and is widely reviewed. I don't understand this nom. FloridaArmy ( talk) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment- The Fighter is NOT inspired by Halloran's book, but was inspired by High on Crack Street: Lost Lives in Lowell. Halloran worked as a consultant on The Fighter. That's not a ticket to notability. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
According to reliable sources Halloran's book DID inspire aspects of the movie and is credited in it. This author was a consultant on it and a Whitey Bulger film, another subject he wrote a book about. See here. FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The most that can be said, based on that source, is that he wrote some book. Not a ticket to notability still. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Joseph Bishop

Joseph Bishop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An LDS mission president, community colleges president, or an author of a few obscure religious books does not make for notability; rather, individual is notable for one event: accusations that are better covered on its own page. Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 04:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply

(As for the wp:Notability_(events): "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" - I believe this is the case here. This is not just a routine news report about a minor event. The news have already made its topic notable.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 04:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
striking duplicate !vote. Primefac ( talk) 00:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That was my only !vote.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The nomination itself was your first !vote. WP:AFDFORMAT says "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line". Dorsetonian ( talk) 07:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Bishop was President of Weber State University which meets WP:PROF "#6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Therefore he definately gets an article. The whole assault issue was not in the article when I approved it and that issue has been largely added by the nominator. If the assualt allegation warrants a mention, it needs to be a short and sweet mention - and definitely not an entire article. I've tried to counsel the nominator on this but hey clearly are not getting my point. Legacypac ( talk) 04:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Weber State Univ. did not exist 1972-1978. (Neither did Utah Valley University.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 04:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Au contraire. 1st Pres. of Weber St. U. in fact was Paul Thompson...in 1990. Pls see: (1) List of Weber State University people#Principals and presidents (2) a quote from a recent profile of Bishop (owing to recent events) in the local[-to-Weber] Ogden UT Standard-Examiner: "Bishop contributed to Weber State’s shift from a college to a university...".-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At least as of 2004 Weber State Univeristy barely granted more bachelors degrees than did Henry Ford College which is a community college. In the 1970s Weber State University was a two year community college just begenning transitioning to giving four year degrees. We already have a seperate article on the accusations against Bishop. Bishop is the author of a few books virtually no one has heard of, ran a place that in the 1970s is best described as a community college, was a mission president (which is clearly not grounds for notability), was president of the MTC (which is also not grounds for notability, and so not defining I could not even tell you who the president of the MTC was when I was a missionary there). He was also a professor at BYU, as best I can tell the director of some of its teacher education functions. I do not think any reasonable interpretation of Academic notability point 6 would make Bishop notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If this article is deleted we should delete the article on Wilford M. McKendrick. Even if it is kept, McKendrick was the principal of a high school for two years. Although there may be more info that might indicate notability for McKendrick. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What are we going to do about Joseph Bishop sexual abuse allegations? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Procedurally speedy keep. The nominator significantly expanded the article's controversy section, split it into an article of its own, and now wishes to delete the original article. That would be a cut and paste move which will lose the earlier edit history and the talk page discussion, and should instead have been been done by moving the page to a new title and removing the extraneous content. Therefore, even if we support the nominator's proposal that there should be an article about only the event and not the subject, the nominated article should still not be deleted. Dorsetonian ( talk) 16:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also delete the spin-off article about the unsubstantiated accusations. This person is not notable and we should not have an article about unproven accusations about a non-notable person. That article is a blatant BLP violation since there has been no conviction, and the alleged offense, though serious, is commonplace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
cmt - Accdg to wp:1E, wp:GNG & wp:Publicfigure are incontiguous. In the US, one inadvertently becomes a public figure when accused of a crime, as far as 2ndary sources covering the same in the news media (in this paricular case, the NYT, WaPo, FNC, HuffPo, USNews&WorldRpt, etc.) is concerned. WP does not have to follow suit, of course (e.g., a recent Mass. court decision controversially renders even victims as inadvertent public figures). (IMHO, due to the present case's notoriety, due to the alleged abuser's non-notability otherwise, perhaps a reasonable compromise will be to render him into the generic "the Missionary Training Center's mission president '82-'86 and have it a child article to the parent article " Mormon abuse cases." -- And, such discretion w rgd those inadvertently become public figures should be done across the WP project, not just here. [Cf.: " Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston," " Catholic Church sexual abuse cases"], etc.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Additional comment: I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 allegations of 1984 LDS missionary-trainees' abuse Dorsetonian ( talk) 20:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have no clue how to engage with this non-visual editor so my apologies to other more experienced Wikipedia editors. I am the original submitter of the entry. I appreciate the efforts of others to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool to engage in character assassinations of others. A lot has been added to what I originally wrote around the sexual abuse controversy. I tried hard to be very neutral in my original coverage. If the additional edits have gone to far, then pare them down. The whole minimization of his role as a President of Weber State College seems like an effort to protect unfavorable association. It is quite easy to see that other Presidents of Webster State / College have Wikipedia pages and they perhaps are of equal notoriety for better or worse. (I didn't dive into whom of them were still living.) I just question the motives of trivializing Weber as not being major academic university. In terms of there not being a "conviction". There probably never will be due to the statute of limitations on this. There has been an undeniable confession by him to the police that he asked her to expose her breasts and that he was serving in a position that all within the LDS church would revere as quite significant. Faithcrisis ( talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • No one "revers" the president of the MTC. We have never even gotten a full consensus that all general officers and general authorities of the Church are notable. Area Seventies, who are probably higher in the hierarchy than MTC presidents, are by consensus only notable for other things. If I had asked Every Mormon I know, which is a lot, who Joseph L. Bishop was 2 months ago, I doubt any would have known. While from a religious perspective Bishop asking a woman to expose her breasts is wrong, I find it hard to construe it as a criminal act, especially in light of the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:PROF is a hard standard to meet and if you meet it you meet it. It is nonsense to say Weber State College is not the same as Weber State University - same school. Additionally even if one argues that he was not notable before these allegations, all the press on the allegations makes him notable now. Legacypac ( talk) 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Change my delete !vote above to: Speedily close AfD & delete blp! per extremely applicable considerations @ Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLPCRIME.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 22:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Commment in the last 10 or 20 years there has been a strong tendency for educational institutions to adopt more prestigious titles--in the US, many former technical institutes have become community colleges, many community colleges have found some method of granting a bachelors degree and called themselves colleges, many colleges have devised some sort of graduate programs and been relabelled as universities. (I believe a similar process has taken place in the UK). Though WP:PROfstates that we regard presidency of a major university as not just implying but proving notability , in practice we have been extending it to all universities and to 4-year colleges. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Actually there are many places in the US that do not grant anything above a bachelors degree that use the name university. Southern Virginia University is an example of this, but by no means the only one. There are regional issues as well. In the east we have Boston College and The College of William and Mary that are by any definition universities. In Utah and some surrounding states, university is pretty much designating any institution that grants 4-year college degrees. BYU-Haweaii and BYU-Idaho are other examples of the all undergraduate university. On the other hand in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, there are junior colleges that are Snow College and similar. It should be kept in mind that community colleges and junior colleges are different. In almost all cases community colleges are junior colleges (although I am working on a post-bachelors certificate from Schoolcraft College which is a community college, so the issue is complex), but classic junior colleges like Snow College are not community colleges at all. The community college tends towards lots of technical programs, career orientation, while also having an emphasis on preparing people for universities. Most key it is almost always a multi-campus entity, with a clear attendance district that it seeks to serve. The junior college is a college that tends more toward liberal arts and general education, has most of its students transfer, will at times have a single campus, dorms, and some are even private institutions. Some also evolved from regional academies which were more at the high school level. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Cmt

  1. Per wp:PUBLICFIGURE, if it turns out any 4-yr higher ed. institution pres. is automatically notable, all bets are off. You can't be part-way pregnant and more/less granularity of allegations would not necessarily translate to more/less libel (which wd not be legally actionable w rgd a public figure in any case).
  2. W rgd nature of allegations as being not much, etc., yes, like most such, 'tis " He said, she said"--he: "Never anything nonconsensual"; she: her (attempted) rape! [3]. (Cf. e.g. Bill Clinton's/Juanita Broaddrick's conflicting accts.)
    -- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not emotionally involved in the whole LDS exposing breast scandal thing. If he is guilty of clergy sexual assault that is between him, his God, the girl, the church and maybe the courts but has no bearing on if he has a page here. He led a 4 year degree granting state owned school. Notable under Prof - full stop. The rest is a side show. Legacypac ( talk) 10:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I agree with earlier comment that Bishop was President of Weber State University, a major university which meets WP:PROF "#6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Therefore, he is a notable figure who should have his own page. He also wrote several books and academic articles, and served as the two-time president of the largest missionary training center for a major world religion. I see no legitimate justification for deleting this page.the truth matters 14:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pblowry ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep This person, especially regarding the rape allegations, are highly notable in a region of the US (Utah/Idaho/Arizona) and more broadly as the \#metoo movement filters through different parts of society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.81.218 ( talk) 23:21, 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 keep. The page has been much improved since originally nominated, and I am convinced by those saying this passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ana Uribe

Ana Uribe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No plausible claim of biographical notability or general notability.

Google search shows that she exists and uses social media. Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. And I'm not even sure we can say this is WP:TOOSOON, because she is 63 years old and has been exhibiting for almost 40 years since she graduated from art college. If this is the most information we can find about her after four decades of work, I don't think she's suddenly going to become more famous in the near future. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: this person is Ana Lucía Uribe, not to be confused with Ana María Uribe, the niece of former Colombian president Álvaro Uribe... she has some notoriety due to drug trafficking charges. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Richard3120: Please add her full name with a source, not least to help readers who may be looking for the other Ana. Thanks. Pam D 08:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Here are some sources Drexel show [4] Mention in Mother Jones article [5] another Philly mural book [6] Art Guide Texas [7] Offering here without interpretation or claims that they do/not establish notability.-- Theredproject ( talk) 19:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I added some sources from Newspapers.com and Project MUSE. Many individuals who have careers in the nineties aren't going to pop up on Google searches. Muralists are especially poorly covered, IMO. She passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
please point out how she meets WP:CREATIVE? I do not see how that is possible. 104.163.147.121 ( talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:Creative is certainly not passed here, as it calls for major widely recognized contributions to the field. The contributions here are not minor and barely recognized, as evidenced by the difficulty to find proper sourcing. 104.163.147.121 ( talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
On second thought, I would strike this !vote but my 121 IP above has expired. She does seem notable now that I look more closely. 104.163.158.37 ( talk) 03:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Earlier comments need revisiting in the light of article improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 01:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Apollos University

Apollos University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:N. All references provided are questionable (from business listings and promotional services). No trusted media coverage to be found in a Google News search. The primary editor seems to have an interest in this institution. Umhsbrek ( talk) 08:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Nothing in existing references suggest that it is a "huge private university". This article fails WP:N and WP:ORG. There is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy WP:GNG. All references used in the current article are either first party, unreliable or trivial mentions. Most of the references are for the accreditation the organization has but they all do not establish the notability of the subject. Please see WP:RS on identifying reliable sources. Umhsbrek ( talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:ARTN to educate yourself away from the popular fallacy that the sources presently in the article have anything whatsoever to do with notability. They do not, which is a fatal flaw in your nomination. You ought to consider withdrawing it. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 19:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It would be a fallacy I was only relying the lack of reliable source in the article to establish non-notability. There are no reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. I quote WP:ARTN, "If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." This is the basis of my nom. Umhsbrek ( talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Please assume good faith and attack the argument not the arguer. I wanted to improve the article but I couldn't find any sources from Google. Most mentions of "Apollos University" are about people who have graduated there but not the university itself or business/university/course listings. Both types of sources do not establish notability. Umhsbrek ( talk) 05:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Everything can be examined and scrutinized within an AfD, including the age and intent of your account. When you bring a nomination, you also understand that you have to build a proper case for deletion, which I have not found here. This includes your record showing that instead of regular edits, you immediately swerved to bring two schools to deletion, suggesting you've been here before and are certainly no new user. Nate • ( chatter) 23:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
If you cared to look at my crosswiki contributions, you would have seen I have done a fair bit of editing on Wikidata. I came across this article there. I have also made it my policy to read as much as possible before contributing on another project. The proper case of deletion has been stated a number of times already, which is that there is no reliable sources to be found publicly available to improve the article. Let's analyze the six results from Google News:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 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. Sandstein 08:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Poonam Jha

Poonam Jha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Casting director of only one notable film and revived a non-notable industry award which is not sufficient and does not establish the notability. The BLP was nominated for speedy deletion back in 2016 by @ AllyD: but apparently tags was removed by the creator. The article has existed for over 1 year without having expanded any further.. Saqib ( talk) 09:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I previously analysed the weakness of the article sources at Talk:Poonam Jha and it has not improved. The sources confirm that the subject has worked as casting director on a TV soap and in that role received an award which does not appear to be notable in itself. Searches are not finding better: not enough for WP:BASIC encyclopaedic notability in my view. AllyD ( talk) 11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per AllyD above and WP:TOOSOON, the subject has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:09, 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 08:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sanjana Banerjee

Sanjana Banerjee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has received some trivial coverage in independent RS but no significant roles in multiple notable films and apparently no large fan base thus clearly fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Saqib ( talk) 09:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Doea a fan base decide the legitimacy of a celebrity? That is a very flimsy argument. And there are various articles on Sanjana Banerjee in the reputed media house like Times of India and also Bengali media. More citations may be added to make this read well. Starlight 09:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadma ( talk • contribs)
Why not? How one can become a celebrity without having a fan base? See the point no. 1 at WP:NACTOR. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:30, 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. As postdlf points out, similar deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events. This one is less detailed, and, notably, is missing Unification Day. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Real dates in fiction

Real dates in fiction (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate list of "real dates" used in fiction. Most of the fiction work uses real dates. (Not Alice in wonderland, it has a different calendar).

I cant see the encyclopaedic value of this article, or any educational value either. Borderline OR. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Way, way on the "indiscriminate" side of any reasonable line that could be drawn. A select few dates from fiction have gained special distinction and become events in their own right, like Festivus and Bloomsday. We could have a list of those, but this isn't that. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:15, 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 and redirect to 2K Sports. Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

PAM Development

PAM Development (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No signs of notability, fails WP:GNG/ WP:CORPDEPTH. Lordtobi ( ✉) 08:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question: Why can't it be merged/redirected to 2K Sports? Regards So Why 10:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    The company was independent for 10 of its 13 years of lifetime, yet we have just about no information on it. The one-liner on the 2K Sports is not quite enough to justify a redirect, as the reader will find out practically nothing if they were sent there. Lordtobi ( ✉) 10:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Well, they will learn that the company was later part of 2K Sports. If we delete the article without a redirect, they won't even learn that. So how is the latter preferable? Regards So Why 11:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Truly a good argument, but I think it should be cleansed of its history so it is not restored over and over by uninformed users (I'm often seeing this on redirect-AfD'd articles that some random users wish to keep against consensus and keep restoring post-closure). I think I'd not be opposed to re-redirecting it afterwards. Lordtobi ( ✉) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Their products were notable to have their own pages and one was licensed from a major (if poor) film and the other licensed a highly popular football player, the company will have more than enough sources out there to sustain an article. 217.43.203.61 ( talk) 19:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:INHERIT, this is not a valid reason to keep the article. There are sources that say that the company developed a game, but there is no actual info about the company. We don't even know who the company was founded by, for example, or when it was bought by Gaia Capital Group (which it was at one point). Lordtobi ( ✉) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - This outlined above is probably the best outcome. As it can't satisfy it's own article, and is later purchased by 2K sports, a redirect is preferable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to and/or merge with 2K Sports. That is most likely the best outcome that could arise as it can't stand on its own. As for deleting and then redirecting, would just semi-protecting (or higher) the redirect suffice? That would (at minimum, depending on level) prevent IP and new editors from reverting it. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 14:53, 9 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. In addition to what has been said below, I will make the following comments. The article is blatantly promotional. It contains elements of copyright infringement, with text copied word for word from a web page about a completely different poet. It contains what appear to be elements of hoax, such as the claim "she is resident Editor Khabrain Manchester UK" which a look at that organisation's web site shows is not true. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Nadia Umber Lodhi

Nadia Umber Lodhi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and WP:JOURNALIST and even lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib ( talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:33, 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. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 06:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Government websites in Sudan

List of Government websites in Sudan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see the purpose of such a list. Saqib ( talk) 08:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 10:34, 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 keep. Sandstein 08:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yips

Yips (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Slang term for "nervousness" in athletes. This term is sometimes mentioned in articles about underperforming athletes, but is not encyclopedic. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol ( talk) 13:03, 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! 19:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Akilnathan Logeswaran

Akilnathan Logeswaran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Logeswaran)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like a promotional text and clearly Wikipedia:Too soon. Pure highlighting memberships and awards without noticeable impact. -- DonJusto99 ( talk) 13:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Everything mentioned is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, therefore not Wikipedia:Too soon. In what way do you see it as promotional? Everything mentioned has references. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
No real relevance has been highlighted in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Where is the actual encyclopedic pertinence in a cumulation of memberships? The "Publications" mention an estimated 50-100 contributors for a couple of pages of content ( http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Renew_Europe_report_2018.pdf). It clearly seems like a lot of hot air. -- DonJusto99 ( talk) 16:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Clear relevance as the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That one publication has more contributors does not make the article less relevant. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 16:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The second one doesn't even mention him as author. The third one is again a collection of 30-40 contributors. -- DonJusto99 ( talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You are right, I mistakenly added that one to publications. Besides from that the publications are just a small addition to the article. The rest of the article retains validity and significancy according to the Wikipedia guidelines.-- Wedderkop ( talk) 16:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The sockpuppet investigation has been closed with no action: “Unrelated to each other.” -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Why do you think so? There is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources like Forbes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandfunk Nova - to just name a few. Can you further explain your point of view? -- Wedderkop ( talk) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't like multiple relists but I can't pull any consensus out of this. Here's hoping for more input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Again, everything mentioned is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, therefore not Wikipedia:Too soon. In addition, there is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources like Forbes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandfunk Nova. Can you please reason your statement? Malala Yousafzai is just 20 and a relevant political acitivst (with an article since more than six years). Age has no relevance nor is a factor for notability. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 21:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The sole mention I find in Forbes is a listing one year in Forbes 30 Under 30, one of twenty 30 under 30 lists in that Forbes publishes annually. This is not sufficient to source an article, the fact that it is almost the sole available source in English is more of aconfirmation of this being a case of WP:TOOSOON. He has a page in the German-language Wikipedia, which is probably a better fit for an individual who has insufficient notability in the English-speaking world, but, frankly, I scanned the short list of gNEws hits, almost all in German, several quoting him about a notable cat on the campus where he was a student Augsburger Campus-Katze wird zum Facebook-Star others merely essays he wrote for HuffPost, and it made me doubt that he has sufficient notability to support the page on our German version. Page is heavily sourced to outfits he is involved with; there is just not enough independent sourcing to support a page. Delete as PROMO. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your feedback. The general notability guideline explicitly says that sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Therefore German sources count as much in the English-speaking world as English sources. The Süddeutsche Zeitung for example is one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, Deutschlandfunk Nova is part of national German public radio broadcaster Deutschlandradio. The cat story is just a side story. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 00:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
He was, according to page and sources cited, Logeswaran was one of the co-founders of the Munich Hub of the pan-European citizens' movement Stand Up For Europe. That is not a sufficient claim of notability. Nor is are the prizes for youthful activism. Recent efforts oat expansion make this appear to be a clear case of oversourced PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The text being highly promotional, as I already noted myself, does not by itself merit an act of defenestration. If that were the sole criterion, it'd have been quite easy to rid Wikipedia from myriads of ego-boosting, paid-hack-created, fluffery & puffery BLP garbage on arrivistes and related fauna. The question is, and this is how this article is dragged to the stand, whether or not the subject is notable. End of story. Methinks it meets WP:GNG. You might think otherwise; I couldn't possibly comment. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Definitely a talented person in terms of self-marketing. The Global Shapers have around 6,000 members according to my brief internet research, while only very few of that group (Akilnathan Logeswaran included) were smart enough to issue a press release following their acceptance. I am still tending towards delete as I think that a rational reader should take at least a 50% haircut on the achievements stated in this promotional article. -- 2.126.23.98 ( talk) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your feedback 2.126.23.98. I don't know how you can "still" tend towards something, as I haven't seen your IP somewhere else in the comments, but I also have not seen any arguments why this article should be deleted. As The Gnome stated, the question is if this article meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage is given, secondary sources are reliable and independent. Therfore this person is notable as defined by Wikipedia:Notability. I haven't seen one comment in this whole discussion that would question this. I understand if someone personally thinks, this person is to young or too self-promotional. But this is not the question for this discussion. Therefore still strong keep. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 22:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I think the word "still" was meant in the light of the other postings and ongoing discussion. That being said, it seems that every third posting in this thread is from "Wedderkop". A defence by one single user to keep an article is fine 2-3 times, but posting the same arguments after almost each and every comment adds some bias to the discussion for new readers. In my view, the article does not meet the notability guidelines and many points are just "nominations" (not actual awards) and "memberships". The German Wikipedia should be sufficient for this case, not need to have an English article. -- 90.221.107.15 ( talk) 07:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Third posting in a row from a Sky Broadband IP with no other postings. Still no valid arguments. Apparent lack of interest by Wikipdia users in a further discussion on this topic does not indicate anything at all. -- Wedderkop ( talk) 23:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
That is a null and void argument: There exist many Wikipedia articles, for better or worse, about persons whose sole purpose in life is self-promotion! Did I hear you say kardashian? Well, gesundheit. Self-promotional behavior that results in Wiki-acceptable notability is not grounds for deletion. I did not make the rules. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - I read the sources and understand a little German, and so was able to also review the sourcing at his article on the German Wikipedia.[ Logeswaran] Overall, there's not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. There's no indepth profile of him - more just brief mentions and lists that he is on, but with little biographical info that would put this into the keep territory for me. Likely a WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:14, 9 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 is no consensus as to the usefulness of the list. Some find it utterly redundant, others find it useful for certain types of searches. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of living British princes and princesses

List of living British princes and princesses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Content forking, articles on the same subject should not be duplicated; we already have lists of British princes and princesses and a list of living British royals. DrKay ( talk) 16:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Apart from there not being huge numbers, the tables in the other articles are sortable. So, if you want to list the living ones, you simply click on the appropriate table header and they will all be listed at the top. DrKay ( talk) 22:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:CFORK says as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Szzuk ( talk) 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
All the other articles are well-within the article size guidelines. There is no need for a split on those grounds. Besides, this isn't a split: it's a fork. DrKay ( talk) 22:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The spin off is acceptable because it allows more detail about individual living princes and princesses than could practically be afforded in the large existing lists. Szzuk ( talk) 22:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Based on your logic we could also create lists of living former presidents and first ladies of all the countries because it's too "hard" for the readers to scroll down a few inches or change the table headers!! This article is not a spin-off, it's a fork. Details about the living members are already available at " British royal family" thus there's no point in keeping this article. Keivan.f Talk 00:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
By that logic there is no good reason for Princes and Princesses to be in separate articles. Feel free to merge them and then we can discuss how hard it is to scroll and change headers. Szzuk ( talk) 10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Why are you turning this into a gender-based issue? The argument here is that the current articles are sufficient enough and cover the essential material, yet they are not that huge to mislead the readers and get them confused. Keivan.f Talk 23:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Any relevant information can be merged into the existing articles. British royal family is only 18kB, so can easily stand expansion and in no conceivable way could be considered a "large existing list". DrKay ( talk) 07:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
But not everyone wants to read about the entire British Royal family, they want to read about the princes and princesses. Szzuk ( talk) 10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Apart from the Queen, the list is the same. DrKay ( talk) 10:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I have no issue with a rename, is it something you would agree to? Szzuk ( talk) 11:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm not sure I see why British princes are in a separate article from British princesses in the first place. WP:LISTN states that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists." Given how vague the guidelines are, in this case the only thing to do is think about it logically. For example, is this article useful and does it fulfill Wikipedia's goal as a source of all knowledge? I can certainly see myself finding this list more useful than separate articles about princes and princesses, therefore I believe this article should be kept. Lonehexagon ( talk) 08:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC):: reply
They're not separate. They're at British royal family#Members. DrKay ( talk) 08:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That's not a list of princes and princesses. Lonehexagon ( talk) 03:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep. Obviously, I'm all for keeping it, and I will say that if accepted I will definitely work on improving the sources. ANewStarWillRise ( talk) 05:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Albert Blithe

Albert Blithe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Albert Blithe was an NCO in the U.S. Army. He served in World War II, the Korean War, and the Cold War. He was in E Company, 506th PIR during World War II until wounded in Normandy. He was discharged after the War but later re-enlisted and served until 1967, dying on active duty. Blithe rose to he rank of master sergeant; his highest award was the Silver Star. Neither Blithe's rank nor his highest award qualify him for inclusion under WP:SOLDIER. His only "claim to fame" is being mis-identified by the producers of the Band of Brothers mini-series as having died in 1948. He has no general notability. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possibly merge the notable bit into the Band of Brothers article. A before search brings up a lot of Band of Brothers fan websites. Not notable under WP:SOLDIER. I appreciate the detailed reasoning given by nominator. SportingFlyer talk 05:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG as there is good detailed coverage of his life and so his rank is irrelevant. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:SOLDIER, like all other special-purpose notability standards, is a supplement to the WP:GNG, not a replacement. If Blithe passes the GNG -- and I see TWO book references listed, something the nominator failed to mention -- then it's not a slamdunk. -- Calton | Talk 15:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • In those book references, is there a mention of Blythe having done something notable?-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Why don't YOU actually answer that clumsy rhetorical question? -- Calton | Talk 02:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Okay, the answer is no, there isn't. And the question wasn't rhetorical. Blythe didn't do anything particularly notable. I've read the books (or excerpts where the whole book wasn't available to me). The fact that the same information gets regurgitated over and over doesn't make an individual any more notable. Blythe jumped into Normandy, got shot, was evacuated and died in '48 except he didn't really die. He served in Korea and earned a silver star but we have no details. He was a career soldier. He died on active duty of a perforated ulcer. Would you like to add anything?-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
        • It isn't what he did but rather that his notability stems from where others have written about him. The mistaken history is an issue of notability itself. What did this one do? Seems to be much less than Blithe...see why that line of questioning is a slippery slope?
           —  Berean Hunter (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
          • I don't think Richard Colvin Cox did anything notable; the page is a better tale about Maihafer or Jacobs. Getting back to Blithe, if ninety-nine people said in ninety-nine books that they knew him before and during Normandy, that doesn't make him notable because he's not well known for something he did. He's just a guy whose fellow unit members lost track of him. He attended the first reunion of the division association and no one said, "Hey, I thought you were dead." We wouldn't have pages on any of these guys if they hadn't inherited their fame from the TV series, possibly even Sink (We have a lot of red-linked generals). Almost all of the guys who appeared in the books had their "life stories featured..." No, they didn't. The books are filled with anecdotes about the men.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The context of coverage matters too. The article notes: "Blithe's life story was featured in the 2010 book A Company of Heroes: Personal Memories about the Real Band of Brothers and the Legacy They Left Us." "Featured" needs clarification: was he mentioned in passing or did he have a whole chapter? Also, and importantly, the Amazon.com description notes: "Compiled from the veterans' notes, journals, letters, photographs, and the author's personally conducted interviews with the surviving contributors, this unique volume features the never-before-told stories of the Band of Brothers from more than twenty children and other family members". Thus, this book appears to primarily consist of primary sources and non-independent sources, which do not count much towards notability. If WP:GNG is not significantly satisfied, then a redirect E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) would be preferable to deletion. --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
      • A certain dose of common sense would help when considering context. What you think of as a primary source is actually the reliable source here as it was used to refute Ambrose's book. It's completely valid and has been vetted so you can't dismiss it that easily...its viewpoints prevail and not Ambrose's/Warren's.
         —  Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GNG. In addition to the book by Stephen Ambrose, the following books discuss him and lend to his notability:
    • A Company of Heroes by Brotherton
    • Beyond Band of Brothers by Winters
    • Brothers in Battle, Best of Friends by Guarnere and Heffron
    • In the Footsteps of the Band of Brothers by Alexander (another secondary source)
    • We Who Are Alive and Remain: Untold Stories from the Band of Brothers by Brotherton
       —  Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't find significant mention of Blithe in newspapers.com or elsewhere beyond BoB-universe material. Smmurphy( Talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
My non-!vote comes from a different view from those above and as I haven't written out my view on BoB articles for a while, I'll write it here. After reading more about the BoB-verse, I came to view Ambrose's role not to be one of historian, but of something slightly different. In particular, Ambrose's innacuracies do not seem to be accidental, but represent a number of different things, including an interest in telling a compelling story and an interest in representing his (Ambrose's) point of view. Among the former could be writing that Blithe died in 1948 - Ambrose did not bother checking records on this, an ommission in favor of storytelling which a historian would likely have double checked. More allarming, and not so related to Blithe, are Ambrose's own prejudices and discriminatory feelings (this issue has left a serious tinge on my reading of Ambrose as a NPOV source). Having thought about these issues, my position is that Ambrose is a story-teller and his characters are based on real people but his books are not academic-quality histories. With this in mind, books related to his (in shorthand, these are a part of the BoB-verse) share in the same issues to some degree. There are authors who cover the same subject but do not follow Ambrose, Ian Gardner is an example (Gardner may have his own problems, but to me they seem independent of Ambrose's). There are also articles about the books or shows which discuss the individuals as characters in the miniseries, which if in-depth enough could lead to their suitability in the same way other fictional or semi-fictional characters are suitable for articles (but I haven't seen this). In any case, for a character in the BoB-verse to have sources required for a NPOV article, I think there should be coverage by people who are outside of the BoB-verse (for instance, a historian who publishes in an academic press and uses footnotes would be nice; Brotherton, Winters, Ambrose, Garner, etc all fail on this point, I think) or at least who write from a perspective clearly independent of Ambrose (Gardner is my example). For BoB figures who do not meet this standard, I think the pages are fine, but they fail NPOV. I hesitate to support such an article at AfD if I cannot improve the article, and thus I try to find independent, in-depth coverage. If I don't find it, I tend to make a note to that effect and move on.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I disagree with the view that Blithe shouldn't have an article because he didn't do anything wiktionary:notable. I don't care if multiple sources are accidental or inherited, if sources exist that allow a NPOV, NOR, V article, I think it is suitable for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I do not feel Ambrose is sufficiently NPOV for his writing and writing derived from his to be clearly NPOV. On yet another hand, I do not feel that Ambrose's issues are so severe that articles based on his writing are obviously not suitable. In such a situation, I actively abstain. Smmurphy( Talk) 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All the references seem to relate to Band of Brothers. No independent notability. Just another one of the soldiers mentioned in that and written about since because they were mentioned in that. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - the cited book coverage combined with media coverage of his character in the series makes this barely meet WP:GNG and so it's a weak keep. Here's some of the info from one of the books for those of you who'd like to read it. Perhaps this would be a better source for the info since it's more accessible. [ [18]]. Here's another brief mention in another book that's not listed: [ [19]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dipak Nandy

Dipak Nandy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little in the way of WP:RS to support this article, with 2 of the 3 pages of search results being WordPress websites. He appears to have written two books, but they do not appear to have many (if any) reviews of a notable nature. There is very little reliable and secondary available about him. Article is also in rough shape style/writing wise.

Based on this, he does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NACADEMIC. Your thoughts are welcome. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 04:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 04:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nandy was a very notable person in his time, but not many of the relevant sources are on line. I've improved the article, but the most important sources - the National Archives - are not on line. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable British political theorist of the '60s. This stuff is fairly obscure, unless you're looking at the UK left wing of the '60s, but he was important within that. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'd expect more recognition given the nature of the topic for WP notability to be ascertained. Btw, the topic is not really obscure, and has been highly socially relevant for years. This is a possible re-direct, as a section in daughter's WP page - Lisa Nandy. Independently, the subject does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.-- Eric Yurken ( talk) 15:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • He wrote 7 books and was the subject of two filmed documentaries. He was appointed by the government as an expert on equal opportunities. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 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. A redirect to wherever is deemed most appropriate can be created editorially. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Korugar

Korugar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How many of these things are there?!! LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 07:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

comment I am not ready to !vote on this one, but the BEFORE seems less convincing than for other articles flagged by this nom. Korugar seems to be discussed in numerous independent sources, mostly books, and in-universe style is grounds for SOFIXIT, not for deletion. I suggest that others look into the matter before !voting. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with Newimpartial. I think adding to the article; and making it clear that this is a page about how Korguar has been invented, published on, and discussed, would be a better way to problems with the article. Ryan shell ( talk) 19:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Sinestro. Pretty much all real-world notability for the planet comes from this character. Argento Surfer ( talk) 20:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Zap with a delete ray It is unclear whether this article should redirect to Sinestro, Sinestro Corps, or his successors. Therefore it is better off simply deleted for being non-notable comicbook fancruft. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 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.
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 New South Wales Police Force. J04n( talk page) 15:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Security Industry Registry

AfDs for this article:
Security Industry Registry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kept back in 2007, when standards for organizations were lower. This isn't even an organization, it's a branch of a police force with no particular significance I can see. No reliable sources for notability -- just directory information,esxcept for one recent article [20]. I'm not sure that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Spinningspark please note that the referenced "Australian Police" is not any official law enforcement agency or associated entity in Australia. See their disclaimer for example. Aoziwe ( talk) 08:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 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. Sandstein 08:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Cynthia Ayoub

Cynthia Ayoub (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and even lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. A promotional autobio apparently created by the subject. finalist in Miss Universe Canada 2016 does not makes one notable. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This article is not notable because it is an autobio which seems to promote herself and her accomplishement to show people that she did more than to just be Miss Universe Canada 2016. And we don't have any reliable sources about her initiatives. Irma2403 ( talk) 06:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:05, 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. Sandstein 07:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thom Dickerson

Thom Dickerson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-term news reporter, undoubtedly doing a good job but without any indication of notability. The sources do not constitute significant coverage and the general notability criteria are not met. A clip of his swearing on camera became popular on YouTube for a while, but that is not grounds for notability since reliable independent sources have not discussed it. bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The RFK journalism award is a notable national award, which establishes the subject's notability. That he won it in the 1970s means that documentation is hard to find - it's probably only available in newspaper morgues or behind paywalls 40 years later, but it is not a type of notability that would fade over time. The Youtube clip came very late in his life, after he had stopped reporting for television. Risker ( talk) 00:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Winning the RFK award would probably be a real claim to notability although the Wikipedia article about the award is only sourced to its own website. However, Dickerson was not a "winner" of the award, but the recipient of a "special citation" which appears to be the third level (below "winner" and "honourable mention"). There is a Washington Post article confirming this: [26]. Since that is the only claim to notability I am still not convinced, I'm afraid. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Despite the award confusion (thank you Bonadea) Dickerson remains a popular part of internet popularity, and an important character for many older people living in Houston. Although not cited, Dickerson hosted an outdoors segment during his media career which was very well received. Any search of the said name, "WTF Reporter" or "Tailgate Jones" will yield results which prove Thom Dickerson's notability in his later years. YouTube popularity can be an as legitimate reason for notability as an award. Your thoughts please. --collectr( u • t • c) 18:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It can be, but personally I can't see it being the case here. Notability is not measured in Google hits or number of views of a YT clip, unless those hits or views have been discussed in independent reliable sources. The WTF clip is one case of a reporter being open and honest on camera which is a good thing of course, but that isn't part of any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. If a Google search would actually yield reliable secondary sources, that's great! I have not been able to find them, but maybe that's because of where I am located, so if you have access to such sources it would be excellent if they were added to the article. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply


Thanks. I've tried using some different search engines, but I haven't come up with many legitimate references for the YT aspect. What I did find, were original recordings of some of Thom's segments. I've attached these as appropriately on the article. I'm happy to disregard the YT aspect. I still believe that this reporter deserves attention for a very long and interesting career, and I feel that this Wikipedia page would act well to bring together all of the sources. 25+ years in a reputable reporting agency (appearing on a regular basis) is an impressive feat alone. The YT videos add to the notability. I appreciate your discussion on the matter as I think it's important to have a devil's advocate. --collectr( u • t • c) 23:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:18, 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. Sandstein 07:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sofya Polyakov

Sofya Polyakov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability beyond The Noun Project, of which she is the CEO and a co-founder. Barte ( talk) 04:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:46, 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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Minal Sampath

Minal Sampath (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

inadequate evidence of notability Does not meet WP:PROF, no evidence of major role in any of the projects. A gold medal school award is not a notable award. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:19, 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 Green National Committee#Steering Committee. Consensus is that notability criteria are not met, but there is a sensible redirect target. Sandstein 07:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Farheen Hakeem

Farheen Hakeem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:BLP1E, WP:SOURCE, WP:BASIC, WP:1E, and WP:NPOL. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better. There is a potentially valid notability claim here as a co-chair of a political party, if she can be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it — but there's nothing here that hands her an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and with two sources that namecheck her existence in the process of being about subjects other than her, one piece of purely local coverage in her own hometown media and just one source that's substantively about her and more than local, that's not enough sourcing to clear GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 13:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In a case like this, my preference would be to find a suitable merge target; however, the most suitable one would likely be Green National Committee#Steering Committee, which would only need Hakeem's name, dates of service, and an associated source/reference. The main obstacle to clearing WP:GNG seems to be the criterion for significant coverage. There are plenty of passing and/or trivial mentions in reliable sources (e.g. [27], [28], and [29]). The only independent source with significant coverage that I could find was [30], which is already cited in the article. ( [31] and [32] also provide non-trivial coverage, but are not independent.) ebbillings ( talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete I saw this and thought hijabi-with-serious-political-accomplishments easy keep. But I have come around to Nom's perspective. News coverage and accomplishments are scanty/minor, and petered out several years ago. note that some search hits in American newspapers on "Farheen Hakeem" are unrelated to this individual. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:39, 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. Sandstein 07:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Steven Christopher Parker

Steven Christopher Parker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:GNG notability that is evident by in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article is about an actor who does not appear to have had any very notable roles. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:01, 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. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Tracy Beaker (disambiguation)

Tracy Beaker (disambiguation) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a proper subject for a disambiguation page; rather than listing unrelated topics that happen to share the same name (like Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology), this page merely lists installments in a franchise, for which there is no evidence that every installment is known solely by the name of the character. An existing page at Tracy Beaker (franchise) was improperly blanked to be redirected here, but this goes against the outcome of a previous AfD, so discussion and consensus are needed to take such a step. bd2412 T 01:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I Oppose. The Tracy Beaker (franchise) merely just was a copy of information that already existed on List of The Story of Tracy Beaker episodes, List of The Dumping Ground episodes, List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes and List of Tracy Beaker series characters and this franchise page only has TV information touches on the show...there's nothing on the books, film, spin off's etc. And more to the point, the main pages struggle with references as it is because at the end of it all, primarily just children watch it, the first book was from the 90s before the internet and the first series was 16 years ago. And you've said "no evidence is known solely by the name of the character"-this new page has done nothing more except swap "disambiguation" for "franchise" still with Tracy Beaker.
Tracy Beaker Returns, The Dumping Ground and The Story of Tracy Beaker, book and TV pages, already link in the infobox and I'm personally working on improving them. And another thing: you say they're "unrelated", but same universe, but a franchise page practically "relates" them whilst the disambiguation page merely puts The Dumping Ground under "see also" not "may refer to". Grangehilllover ( talk) 06:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Please review WP:DABCONCEPT. Differently-named installments of a single franchise are not ambiguous to each other. You have not made a single point relevant to the disambiguation problem. Please also read my rationale more carefully. I did not say that these are "unrelated", I said exactly the opposite of that; it is precisely because they are related that they are not ambiguous topics. bd2412 T 11:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ BD2412: I left a message on your talk page, but if you didn't get it. Because I'm heavily involved in editing Tracy Beaker, an awful lot of vandalism occurs, but I'm going to some how work with the franchise page, but we need the disambiguation page

. Grangehilllover ( talk) 11:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I have replied there. Perhaps a set index article would be appropriate here (see Wikipedia:Set index articles), but not a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 11:51, 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. Sandstein 07:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You Are My Friend (2018 film)

You Are My Friend (2018 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this future film has a decent amount of news coverage, it appears to me that it is simply too soon for this film to have an article. There is only a single cast member announced (Hanks as Rogers) and it doesn't appear that they have started filming anything yet. I would suggest deleting for now and re-creating the article as the movie gets closer to an actual release. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 01:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:14, 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. czar 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Anna Nova

AfDs for this article:
Anna Nova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award category - "Venus Award - Best German Starlet" is not significant.

First AfD closed as "Delete" in 2007, and the subject has not become more notable since. The other AfD, for "Anna Novakov", in unrelated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:07, 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 keep. The discussion is overwhelmingly in favour of "keep." Editors in the discussion have mentioned that the article needs an overhaul, not deletion. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor Talk 15:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

JS Kabylie in Africa

JS Kabylie in Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be repeat certain paragraphs from the JS Kabylie article and then add a number of unsourced tables of results. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK seems to apply here. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 00:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 06:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources are collating information on their African results in this way, to warrant this stand-alone article. The article should be redirected back to the club page. Eldumpo ( talk) 08:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not sufficient content to have a separate article, mention at main page and have this as redirect. Giant Snowman 08:26, 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. J04n( talk page) 15:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan

List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of international cricket centuries by Tamim Iqbal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Agreed number of international centuries for a stand alone list is 25. Shakib Al Hasan has only scored 12 while Tamim Iqbal has 18. Suggest merging the information into the parent articles and deleting these lists. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep This Article looks likes better with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket notably guidelines. Not required to comparison with other century. Riazul Islam BD ( talk) 12:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Ianblair23: You have mentioned that a list article relating to a cricketer can be accepted if he has scored at least 25 international centuries. Apart from Shakib and Tamim Iqbal there is another article that should be concerned regarding the number of international centuries - List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga Tharanga also has scored only 18 international centuries and when compared to the biographical topics of both Shakib Al Hasan and Tamim Iqbal, the content in Upul Tharanga's biography is comparatively less. So need to AfD the List of centuries scored by Upul Tharanga before heading into this. Abishe ( talk) 09:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete – I agree entirely with the comments by Ianblair23 and think the list should be deleted. It's too short and if retained (would not perhaps set a precedent for but) would begin a trend for even shorter lists and you would end up with one about someone who scored a single half-century sometime. 25 is a milestone in this context and the minimum of 25 is sensible. Joe Root has reached 24 centuries and his list should be created when he scores his 25th, but not yet. Thanks. Protea caffra ( talk) 09:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete both, no real need for these, they aren't long enough to warrant a spinout. Szzuk ( talk) 10:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The extra cricketers added after the afd began should be removed or this might close as a procedural keep. Szzuk ( talk) 07:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay, Szzuk, I'll start afresh with those. Thanks for the heads-up. Appreciated. Protea caffra ( talk) 07:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - Rather than looking to delete only this list, a limit should be introduced for the minimum number of centuries to keep a stand alone list of centuries for a specific cricket player. Currently there are many such lists with different number of centuries in Wikipedia. See List of international cricket centuries by Rohit Sharma, List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman, List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim etc. Jumbojelly500 ( talk) 04:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jumbojelly500, the minimum is 25 as discussed above. Does that help you? Protea caffra ( talk) 23:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I am adding the three you name to another list for deletion. All under the minimum. Protea caffra ( talk) 23:07, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gina Ortiz Jones

Gina Ortiz Jones (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep I created this article because I was searching for info about Ortiz Jones. WP:NPOL has an exception that I think she solidly meets: substantial coverage and interest from RS that are independent of the politician, for example Time Magazine, Teen Vogue, HuffPo, Filipino-interest publications, and more. She is also getting coverage because she has been endorsed by DFA, Emily's List, and quite a few more organizations that value her salty, intelligent comments plus her being Asian, veteran, gay, grown up in poverty, and more. Also, thanks to suggestion from I dream of horses, the article may meet WP:GNG based on the many independent news articles already written about Ortiz Jones. HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:49, 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. czar 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Finn (police dog)

Finn (police dog) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dog being used as a coathanger for promotion of a campaign. As WP:BIO1E nearly says, dogs known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Tagishsimon ( talk) 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:29, 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.

April Fools' Day nominations

For joke nominations, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2018.
  1. ^ https://kotaku.com/tag/ubiworkshop
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_1&oldid=1142617282"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE