Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 April 17 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Trenton Technology

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

Obvious advertising is obvious. Available sources are weak at best. Mostly passing mentions and press releases. Some of the best of what's available is things like this, local coverage about routine business activities. The only possible redirect I see is PICMG but it too is poorly sourced and overall advertorial, and tangentially related to boot. Not sure it's worth it really. GMG talk 23:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:57, 17 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Simon Webb (composer)

Simon Webb (composer) (  | 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 major author of this article is the subject. It cites only one independent source, which is a mere namecheck. Google doesn't provide much more. I don't think there are sufficient non-trivial independent sources for a biography. Guy ( Help!) 22:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:58, 17 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. I'm not averse to undeleting if further sourcing emerges or it becomes NOTTOOSOON Spartaz Humbug! 18:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Morgan Dameron

Morgan Dameron (  | 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 director. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other criteria Livilnius ( talk) 22:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:02, 17 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. Quite apart from any consideration of notability, the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet: See CSD G5. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Brazilian Science Protests

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

First, I get no hits for "Brazilian Science Protest" so this is poorly named to begin with, but the one article about this specific protest does not mention the March for Science as the protest occurred in 2016. This is OR in an attempt to justify the significance of this one event. Brazil's actions could be included at March for Science if other articles available tie recent happenings in Brazil to the "March for Science movement", but these Science mag and NPR articles from after the March for Science occurred don't even mention it. Rhinopias ( talk) 22:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Addition: my text "does not mention the March for Science" is in reference to an older version which was changed after the nomination. Rhinopias ( talk) 16:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Seraphim System ( talk) 08:06, 19 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. Clear consensus that the article satisfies GNG. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 00:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Innovation Credit Union

Innovation Credit Union (  | 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 initially PROD'd this, but the references were improved, so I'm letting the community decide. The references added appear to be routine coverage, and to non-reliable sources. Admittedly, the Battlefords Now write-up seems pretty solid, but even with that, it falls short of corporate notability requirements. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I approved this as a notable topic. Credit Unions are a much bigger deal in Canada, often one of the primary financial institutions in their trading area, unlike in the US. This particular credit union was half of a Supreme Court of Canada case Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union which gives it additional coverage beyond what regular long standing credit unions get. Credit Unions are also regulated amd deposits insured so there is RS coverage there far beyond typical private businesses. I'm sure with some searching many many reliable sources going back many years can be brought forward for this topic and its predecessor organizations. Remember this is a 50,000 member owned organization with a long history - surely there is some corporate spam that is more pressing to delete. Legacypac ( talk) 22:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Notability isn't inherited, being involved in a federal law suit doesn't make the subject automatically notable. I also don't see how "50,000 member owned organization with a long history" qualifies it under WP:NCORP. If you feel there's more coverage out there, I implore you to add it to the article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
As per my nomination, I agree the Battlefords Now write-up is descent coverage, the other two seem to fall under routine coverage. Both the other articles discuss the same topic, the vote for them to become federal, as opposed to coverage about the subject itself. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Mind sharing your thoughts on why? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply


Edit conflict. There seems to be some confusion between being "involved in a federal lawsuit" and being a title party in a precident setting Supreme Court of Canada case. This organization's three main counterparts all have articles as well. 50,000 owners is not insignificant but on par with many public companies. Naming rights to a WHL arena, long history that generates press over time, plenty of community sponsorships and donations all add to GNG. I'm sure if one dug in the newspaper archives there would be stories about the credit union going back many years. I don't have any affiliation with ICU but I know how it works for similar credit unions around me. Legacypac ( talk) 17:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Other editors and I have added more sources. The CU holds naming rights for the life of the facility for a 4 part facility in North Battleford as well as the hockey/curling arena in Swift Current. Legacypac ( talk) 06:08, 19 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

PC Engine Best Collection

PC Engine Best Collection (  | 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 video game compilation series. I can't find any RS, mostly just stores. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:42, 16 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

SmileDirectClub

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

Not sure why we kept this the first time. The other discussion is not picked up by the software, as the company had a different name then: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmileCareClub. Per the talk page, this has been subject to an absurd amount of what appears to be UPE or COI editing. Bad refs, including lots of SPS, and the branded pictures! And promotional language. Even if others think the refs are sufficient per NCORP this needs to be rewritten from scratch based on independent, good quality sources. Jytdog ( talk) 21:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog ( talk) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The minor changes from editors in question have been removed. Additionally, it looks like this article is all factual and provides correct information about the company. Even if it was written by the company, should that matter? The most important thing is that the information is correct, and I don't think that anyone outside the company could do a better job of that or provide nearly as much content, anyway. There doesn't seem to be any self promotion to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.24.182.162 ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It appears that representatives of the company made edits to correct and clarify inaccurate information about the company and the aligner therapy treatment. That’s not promotion but factual information. To take it down for making those clarifications and corrections seems overly aggressive and discriminatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.13.82 ( talk) 17:55, 23 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. ( WP:SNOW close). North America 1000 03:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Theodore Bear

Theodore Bear (  | 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 character  GILO    A& E⇑  20:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:45, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Breathe-A-BULL

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

Unencyclopedic stuff. Deletion contested – Ammarpad ( talk) 20:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • @ Pppery: You should contest the deletion here too. – Ammarpad ( talk) 20:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Wikipedia does not have a speedy delete criterion to cover this, but we can ignore all rules and make the rapid determination that one campus' smoking regulations are not the proper material for an entire encyclopedia article. These are not ground-breaking rules that have been the topic of widespread press coverage because of their radical departure from some norms. The author had claimed when contesting the original speedy deletion that "This page is made to inform the public about USF's tobacco and smoke-free policy. As part of my class project was to add to a Wikipedia page with reliable information you have and presenting it. Therefore I have done such and continue to add over the week with reliable information and sources to back it all up." Clearly, an academic assignment where the teacher failed to properly educate the students on the proper uses of Wikipedia. I've informed the author that they and their teacher should refer to WP:SUP. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although I would usually advocate a merge for a topic like this, it just doesn't have a place in the USF article letalone a whole article. startTerminal ( haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 05:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 05:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Nepali newspapers in New York

List of Nepali newspapers in New York (  | 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 list article where not a single one of the entries in the list is notable, i.e. has an article here on en-WP, or even is likely to ever get one, "sourced" only to the non-notable entities themselves... - Tom |  Thomas.W talk 20:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Because the notability of the newspapers themselves is at best suspect, a list of them holds even less notability - an effect not unlike the multiplication of fractions. I also note that the only two "sources" in the article are both dead links. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This might be worth brief mention in Nepali culture in New York but does not merit a stand alone article. The fact that article does not exist tells us that this is putting the cart before the horse at best. The larger topic article needs to be created first. Weather there are enough reliable sources to create that article I do not know. I have to say that a lot of our article on immigrants groups are very weak and rarely based on sources that have studied the topic in a deep and expansive way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:22, 20 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dikpal Karki

Dikpal Karki (  | 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 about a male beauty pageant contestant with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources to prove any kind of notability, as required by WP:GNG, only mentions on beauty pageant fan sites and similar. - Tom |  Thomas.W talk 20:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:47, 16 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! 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

B'Ginnings

AfDs for this article:
B'Ginnings (  | 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 deleted in previous AfD with only one !vote for Keep by Evangp. That user then created this article three months later stating they had "removed fluff" so it at least makes a claim to not be CSD:G4. The only source added in this version that is significanlty about the nightclub is a Wordpress blog entry from the local library. All other sources are at best passing mentions. WP:BEFORE discloses no significant coverage. No evidence this qualifies under the general notability guideline or under any applicable subject-specific notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 00:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 00:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
KEEP - Many famous bands played this club. Evangp ( talk)
  • Keep I created the article that was deleted. I am one of the many, many thousands of Wikipedia contributors who nonetheless have many other interests and responsibilities and cannot monitor and "guard" my articles. Props to those who have little else in their life, or have hours a day to devote to Wikipedia. Maybe I will someday. In any event, I am just now seeing that, rather rapidly, an article that had existed for years was deleted, apparently on the initiative of less than a handful of persons.

I believe it is wrong to delete something simply because it is uninteresting to some. B'Ginnings was at least as important as any of many articles I could cite that some of the "pro-delete" faction have authored or contributed to, such as a restaurant that has been open for less than a decade in Chicago. The principal importance of B'Ginnings -- other than being the project of a legitimate rock star, Danny Seraphine -- was that it was one of the VERY FEW venues even available to see rock and roll during its existence, and thus it played an important part in increasing acts' access to a very major (yet very controlled and hard-to-crack) market.

If B'Ginnings had ONLY been the first place that Tom Petty ever played in Chicago it would be significant. Yet a glance at the now-deleted list of acts who played there -- which, as I recall, was admittedly an amateurish scroll (I did not add that feature to he article, others did, attesting to the importance the venue had for a generation) shows that Seraphine and ownership too chances on bringing a number of not-yet-headliners there. The critical role of such "incubator" clubs in artists' careers, and in changing the tastes of the larger audience by exposure to acts they might otherwise not have seen, cannot be overstated.

Chicago mainstream press and radio was in the 1970s considerably more conservative than, say, NY arts media. Relatively speaking, punk was ignored, New Wave was ignored, wavy-power-pop bands struggled to get any airplay and attention. By definition, rock and roll has always had an underground aspect, and punk, again by definition, especially so. Part of music history is simply to chronicle, then let others draw conclusions. Part of the special value of Wikipedia is to allow such chronicling. There are few contemporaneous accounts of many early Delta blues masters; some R&B and jazz artists barely exist in memory or recorded history, yet were very important. There is something disturbing and wrong, arrogant and judgmental, about the creeping overuse of "notability" as thin veil for a difference of taste (at best) or censorship (at worst).

Obscurity is not the same thing as not being notable. Notability has to do with importance, not with fame. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes People magazine. This venue -- again, one of the few midsized venues in Chicagoland at the time, as well as one of the VERY FIRST in the suburbs, and an important milestone in the development of Schaumburg and The Land Beyond O'Hare as more than just Home of Woodfield, see the post at https://ourlocalhistory.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/only-the-beginning-of-the-nightlife-scene-in-schaumburg/, which as the blog of a unit of local government by a professional researcher is, I would submit, a reliable and credible source -- has at least the historic importance of Victoria's Secret Models of 2000-2009. I mean, really. Come on.

The 1970s and 1980s -- the decades immediately predating the Internet -- are very poorly documented online. They were so recent at the WWW's inception that, it seemed, no one saw need to chronicle and archive. Predating millennials' birth, they are deemed unimportant. So there is an Internet bias, and thus a source bias, against many content areas that are, nonetheless, important.

It does disrespect to fellow Wikipedians delete when, clearly, an article is not the vanity work of one person but the type of collective contribution that a forum like this should promote. The smug dismissal of contributors as "fanboys" is needlessly rude. As I recall -- and it's been a while since I visited -- the article had attracted much interest, of which the long laundry list of acts persons had posted serves as evidence. While I did not add the "list" that existed here, I have in fact used the content in it that others posted as a useful reference a couple times over those years. Isn't that why we have encyclopedias, as reference works? A better course would have been to improve the article. Or to mentor some of the contributors in how they could make it better, or become more polished Wikipedians. And I would have liked to have been invited to the conversation more directly.

I thank Evangp for the reinstatement. I will try to flesh out the article. If anyone has a cached version, that would be of use, and I would be grateful. Popsup ( talk) 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Wow. @ Evangp and Popsup:, those two responses together hit pretty much every one of the "keep" arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I encourage you both to read that document and the Notability content guidelines In particular, the claim: "Notability has to do with importance, not with fame" is completely wrong here. The general notability guideline provides more information. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete upon review of the two mentions in Billboard, they appear trivial. There is an article about the club, but it's on a "general club news" part of the magazine. Other sources are mentions. The blog here [1] is probably the best source, but I don't think it passes GNG on its own as there's not much else out there in terms of reliable sources. SportingFlyer talk 05:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 16 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. Fairly good consensus to keep. Arguments against were that there didn't seem to be much in depth coverage. Arguments for included asserting notability through several sources and a new set of notability crteria from WikiProject Chess. That particular set of criteria assumes GNG is met on this article, although does not have the status of SNG. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 00:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ingrid Aliaga Fernández

Ingrid Aliaga Fernández (  | 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 procedural nomination, I'm neutral on the outcome. This person meets the recently-established WP:NCHESS by having won the women's Peruvian Chess Championship. However, she never achieved the rank of Grandmaster (the older chess notability rule-of-thumb), nor do I see sufficient non-statistical references for this to pass via WP:GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - I did a pretty good search for sources. Her name comes up in crosstables, and in news blips about tournament results, but unfortunately there doesn't look to be much by way of in-depth coverage (or much coverage at all unless we just wanted to compile a list of tournaments she has played in/won). E.g. [2] [3] [4] and then coverage in articles that seem more about Deysi Cori -- not sure why she received more coverage for her win than Aliaga did? ( e.g.). Then there are a few questionable and/or primary sources, but even still there's no much to go by. To me this highlights an issue with NCHESS #2/#3 (being directly related) -- chess is played just about everywhere, and the coverage of winners of national championships doesn't reliably get a lot of in-depth reliable press coverage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Peru is not like Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands, they have several grandmasters (e.g. Julio Granda Zuniga) so winning the Peruvian Women's championship and being the number 2 rated woman player in Peru is no trivial achievement. Competing in a women's world championship should be enough to get her over the line. Also, without going too deeply into the links, I get a lot of hits when I search on "Ingrid Aliaga" (the usual shortened form of her name). Most of them are in Spanish of course but that's perfectly ok. Article can be improved of course, citing Mark Weeks is not ideal but there's no reason to believe the information is false. The English (written by a non-native speaker) obviously needs cleaning up too. I don't see how it would improve the encyclopedia to delete this and break the links from Peruvian Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship 2010 and Women's World Chess Championship 2012. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ MaxBrowne: Could you link to some of the sources you found? I also searched for Ingrid Aliaga and looked through the non-English sources and did not come up with enough. Meeting one of the criteria for chess players does not, of course, give anyone a free pass -- it's an indication of who's probably notable, not a guarantee (we still need some in depth coverage in reliable sources). I would love to switch over to keep, but we need more than just the fact that she won a title. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I found an old interview with her, she was a promising junior who got her WFM title at 13 but appears to have curtailed the chess for several years to concentrate on study. She gets a fair amount of coverage in Peruvian and other Latin American sources (e.g. fideamerica.com) and IMO playing in a Women's World Championship alone is good enough to justify notability. In general I think User:Uldis s is doing a great job of countering the systemic WP:BIAS of the English wikipedia's chess coverage by creating articles for players who have not received much attention in English language sources. There is a big Pan-American chess scene which is poorly covered on the internet in general, and on wikipedia in particular. MaxBrowne ( talk) 00:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Combination of FIDE title + multiple wins of a national championship + Olympiad appearances, constitutes good notability in my opinion. Brittle heaven ( talk) 13:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Maybe a good case study in whether/how often a WikiProject's notability guidelines can supersede WP:N/ WP:GNG (and/or whether that, combined with the non-English nature of most of the sources, provide a good enough reason to give the subject the benefit of the doubt). Arguments about titles, appearances, etc. should indicate that someone is notable in the sense of having significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They don't confer notability unless we ignore GNG. (I must have missed the discussion leading to NCHESS, and certainly don't agree with the wording "presumed notable", which NSPORTS also uses) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Discussed at WP:CHESS here and here.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh, I know. I commented in the first one, expressing that it should indicate what's notable and missing the language "presumed notable" -- I guess I just missed where it was implemented. I notice that Cobblet expressed something similar regarding relation to GNG, so I suspect this isn't actually intended to supplant the GNG and thus, again, titles, tournaments, etc. are only indicators of notability -- we still need sources when GNG is challenged. So far the best source is a brief interview published by the department of sport (not typically ideal to go to government sports agencies for neutral reporting of coverage of its own athletes). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The use of the word "presumed" comes from GNG itself. Cobblet ( talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that WP:NCHESS is not a guideline but part of a WikiProject page, and as such does not represent the wider community consensus required for it to be taken into account in this AfD's closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree. I don't understand Sandstein's objection. Does he think that no other sports notability guidelines began as WikiProject discussions?-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
A handful of people at a WikiProject cannot decide to throw out WP:GNG in favor of their own criteria when that criteria claims as notable articles which are not notable according to any actual policies/guidelines. That's part of the difference between being something a couple people added to a WikiProject page and something that has strong consensus to be a guideline. This very AfD is an example of why the criteria at WP:NCHESS would have no chance to gain such consensus. Of course, since individual AfDs depend more on who attends them, it will probably be kept nonetheless. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
No one is throwing out GNG - these criteria merely indicate that in this case, she may met GNG by winning her national championship. Of course the sources may be offline and not in English. -- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 01:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Winning a national championship is enough to establish notability.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This blog reproduces an interview with Aliaga in El Peruano, and links to a different interview of hers in Perú.21, which no longer appears to be available online. There are also interviews of her on YouTube, e.g. [5], [6]. GM Slipak commented on some of her games in his daily round reports at the 2017 Women's Continental Championship: [7], [8], [9]. We can probably find even better coverage if we dig more deeply (for instance, this says a little bit more about Aliaga than the first source currently used in the article), but I think what we've already found is sufficient to constitute significant coverage. Cobblet ( talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment in response to Sandstein: WikiProject guidelines that are accepted by the community (throught discussions like this one) generally are accepted in place of GNG, especially when people that meet those guidelines usually meet GNG as well. In this case, as the SNG was created very recently and hasn't been tested, it would be a circular argument to keep merely per the SNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:47, 17 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 Brian Sandoval. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kathleen Teipner Sandoval

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

Being the spouse of a US Governor doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and I don't see sufficient coverage about her specifically to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

How come there's an article for Anne Gust, Sharon Davis (wife of Gray Davis), and Judith Dean (wife of Howard Dean)? Similarly, there should be an article for Kathleen Tiepner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LudicrousEditor ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist". 104.163.158.37 ( talk) 06:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The page you quoted from also says "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else" as Bill Shakespeare once said - " Mark you this, Bassanio, The Devil can cite Wikipedia policy for his purpose". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:57, 18 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Prehistoric kingdom

Prehistoric kingdom (  | 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 upcoming Steam game from a non-notable publisher seems to fail WP:NSOFT as it does not have coverage from significant third-party news sources. Passengerpigeon ( talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 16 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Septrillion ( talk) 02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Roosevelt Mall

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

Lacking any significant coverage from secondary sources. Only "sources" are stores at that mall. Septrillion ( talk) 19:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 17 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Interactivo Gulf

Interactivo Gulf (  | 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:ORG - only 1 ref and that does not mention the company, I can't find any of value to add. The website http://www.interactivo-gulf.com appears to have been taken over as a spam site. Created by a single purpose account. KylieTastic ( talk) 18:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:03, 17 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) GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Anitha Pauldurai

Anitha Pauldurai (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:54, 18 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

P S Jeena

P S Jeena (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 18:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Akanksha Singh

Akanksha Singh (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:47, 18 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) GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Shiba Maggon

Shiba Maggon (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:47, 18 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) GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Appoorva Muralinath

Appoorva Muralinath (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:46, 18 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

James Mason (neo-Nazi)

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

Very few citations, google returns few independent reliable sources. Person is not likely notable enough to warrant an article. BrxBrx( talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 17:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete we wouldn't keep a person with this type of profile in a mainstream political party; I don't see a reason to have looser standards for fringe figures. If Siege magazine is notable, it should have an entry of its own; I don't feel the voluminousness of a fringe publication makes this person notable. The coverage in "The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right" (linked above) might be enough to meet GNG, but I don't think it's enough on its own, and am not convinced by any of the other sources. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:54, 17 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Andrea Lambert (writer)

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

Popose delete and salt of related titles. Article is a recreation of Andrea Lambert (previously deleted per AfD and G5). The sources are allmost all links to writing by Lambert herself. The article is probably a recreation of Andrea Lambert. See the page logs for that page here Not sure why Qolpeder has access to content created by blocked sockpuppet Evlekis, but the article may qualify for deletion under speedy criterion G5: Creations by banned or blocked users. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Lambert That AfD is so old however, that G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion does not apply. Given the creation history and the sockpuppetry I'm bringing the article to AfD for discussion. Vexations ( talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt per nom. - GretLomborg ( talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. To be fair, I'll note that as an administrator I'm able to view deleted pages, so I can confirm that this version is not a verbatim copy of the previously deleted version — it still isn't really doing a better job of properly demonstrating or sourcing her notability than the previous version did, but neither the body nor the sourcing are a straightforward copy of the prior version. But this is a virtually perfect example of what Wikipedia:Citation overkill refers to as a "notability bomb": editors trying so hard to make a person appear more notable than she really is that they'll throw every conceivable reference they can get their hands on into the mix to get the number of footnotes into the 40s or 50s, but the sources are complete garbage if anybody actually analyzes them. This is not referenced to reliable source coverage about her, but to primary sources, pieces of her own writing, event calendars, and sources which tangentially verify the existence of a literary anthology without even mentioning Lambert's existence at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you reference a writer as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As noted in Citation Overkill, "an article with just four or five really good sources is considered better referenced than an article that cites 20 or 30 weak ones." Bearcat ( talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone, only notable people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nn. Szzuk ( talk) 14:43, 23 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) 12:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

HeadKrack

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

Not seeing a lot of notability, but some very iffy sourcing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those noted above (LA Sentinel and Dallas Observer). FloridaArmy ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing in the article even tries to make a claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) for anything, and none of the sourcing shown so far is cutting it. The LA Sentinel source shown above is not independent third party coverage about him, but merely leads to a YouTube clip of him speaking about himself in a Q&A interview, so it doesn't support notability at all — people get over GNG by being the subject of coverage written by other people, not by talking about themselves or other things in Q&A interviews — and RapZilla is a blog, not a reliable source. So the only reference that isn't a complete non-starter right off the bat is the Dallas Observer — but that's a local alt-weekly, so while it would be acceptable as one source within a mix of more solid sourcing than anybody has actually been able to show, it does not bring the GNG all by itself as an article's only valid source. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better — but he needs more and better sources than this. Bearcat ( talk) 20:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
As a lead in two nationally syndicated shows he meets notability guidelines and he is noted extensively in LOTS of sources in addition to those noted above. He's a feature of Atlanta influencers and is very popular. Not even a borderline case. FloridaArmy ( talk) 21:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Lead? Are you sure about that? Dish Nation lists him as one of 7 co-hosts and the show seems to be only just about notable itself. Then here is the Rickey Smiley Morning Show which doesn't even have an article. It redirects to its actual host, who is Rickey Smiley not HeadKrack. If you can show significant coverage by reliable sources to prove notability then that could swing the whole thing towards a "keep" but that Dallas Observer reference you added, while a small step in the right direction, is nothing like significant coverage on its own as it is just one paragraph in an article that is mostly about other people. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a whole lot more than a paragraph. And Wikipedia is missing articles on lots of subjects regarding African Americans. His lead roles on very notable and long running shows as well as the media cpverage he's received make him notable. FloridaArmy ( talk) 22:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
That's more than a paragraph, yes. But it's still the only reliable source that has been shown at all, so it doesn't make him pass WP:GNG all by itself. We require a lot more than just one acceptable source before we deem a person notable, if he doesn't have any "inherent" notability claim (like being the newly elected president of a country) strong enough to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment. Bearcat ( talk) 03:58, 19 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Back to Me (Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui song)

Back to Me (Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui song) (  | 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:NSONGS. Could go back to redirection. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 20:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Not to overstate the case but the WP:NSONG criteria are as follows. The song must have been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts; has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award; or has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. And, as the text says, a song's charting "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. Emphasis added. "Play it cool / But I see through it " :-) - The Gnome ( talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:56, 16 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. Obvious promo by undeclared paid editor blocked after warning about spamming Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Moot (app)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, largely unsourced. Kleuske ( talk) 16:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Some observation -I will like to further note one thing. Whenever the page is tagged for deletion, the author will put {{ db-author}}, so that it will be seen as less serious deletion and easily refunded. This has happended twice on Moot Technologies where the page was originally created. And after some time, the author simply requested refund, it currently exist in draft Draft:Moot Technologies after such "refund". Even on this title, they tried this trick, see it, so as to scuttle this AfD and easily request "refund". The current author is either evading block placed on EmmanuelOlilo ( talk · contribs) or is coordinating things with him. The contents of all the versions are viewable through filter log and shows similitude beyond coincidence – Ammarpad ( talk) 13:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:14, 17 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Farkas Bethlen (born 1957)

Farkas Bethlen (born 1957) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable politician, mayor of a Hungarian village Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Mayors of small villages do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, he would need to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to be deemed significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places this size. But apart from his own self-published website, the only other source shown here is a family genealogy, which is not evidence of notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if a place is called a village, pretty much the mayor is never notable. There is no other even remote claim to notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:39, 19 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. Fairly strong consensus to keep, with only the nom. supporting deletion. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 00:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Tony Wood (British businessman)

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

Notability not established by article. Only appointed as Chief Executive of Meggitt in 2018 so has been in the role 4 months max and prior to that had not held CEO or Chairman roles in any other business. On that basis I would say it's too soon for an article here Uhooep ( talk) 15:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 17:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 17:40, 16 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Emily Wong (pageant)

Emily Wong (pageant) (  | 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 the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER B dash ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 15:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 15:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:50, 17 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 keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) ATZNA 07:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 10:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ian Jones (Welsh footballer)

Ian Jones (Welsh footballer) (  | 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 has been propsed for speedy deletion before, I thought it should be deleted through AfD instead. The article is rather a waste and I even tried to expand or fix the article but there is no sources at all to provide any verification on him passing WP:FOOTY or GNG. Thanks. I have now read the new sources added and I change my !vote to Keep if the article is about this player. Thanks. ATZNA 20:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 14:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ Hhhhhkohhhhh, Yes, I noticed that, I felt the article can possibly pass if any of you finds sources to provide verification, that is why I brought it to AfD. I'll have it in mind for the future for sure anyways. Thanks. ATZNA 15:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ ATZNA: Better to post to AfD or PROD after having a source. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:55, 16 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Moslem Bakhshayesh

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

Authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. none of the book is notable (at least by WP Standards).. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but I was unable to find any coverage in independent RS so fails GNG as well. For what its worth, no entry exists on Persian WP. Saqib ( talk) 14:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article is by a new editor who has made no other edits. No sources on the page. claim is that he has three books one each in 2016, 2017 and 2018. However, my search on "Moslem Bakhshayesh" produced nothing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:16, 17 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) 17:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gareth Rhodes

Gareth Rhodes (  | 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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP: POLITICIAN. reddogsix ( talk) 13:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep It does not fail WP:POLITICIAN. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable under it. He has gotten major coverage by Politico, Huffington Post, and Roll Call. Great Great Grandson ( talk) 19:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The NYT article is not about Gareth Rhodes. It is about the seven different candidates running for the same seat as Gareth Rhodes. Is there any (non-local) news coverage in which Gareth Rhodes is the subject of the article? Peacock ( talk) 13:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

::: Yes. There Is a Politico story cited in the article that is specifically about Gareth Rhodes Great Great Grandson ( talk) 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Great, now find several more articles like that. A candidate does not magically vault from "run of the mill" to "special case" just because one piece of coverage exists beyond his own district's local media — it still takes several more substantive pieces of nationalized coverage, not just one, to make a candidacy special. Bearcat ( talk) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then he has to win the election and thereby hold the seat, not just run as a candidate, to become notable as a politician. But this demonstrates no strong claim of preexisting notability, and the existence of some campaign-related coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG pass for a candidate either, because every candidate can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage. His district is in the immediate suburbs and exurbs of New York City itself, further, so the fact that one of the sources here is in The New York Times does not make his candidacy special — it just represents the expected local coverage in his local media, not evidence that his candidacy is storming the national notability ramparts — and at any rate, that source is not about him per se, but simply mentions his name in the process of being fundamentally an overview about all of the challengers vying in the Democratic primary, so it doesn't single Rhodes out as a special case over and above Antonio Delgado or Brian Flynn or Patrick Ryan or Erin Collier or David Clegg or Jeff Beals. And at any rate, NPOL #2's provision for "major local political figures" is about mayors and city councillors and county supervisors, not unelected candidates for anything. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough as of today. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete even the wording in the article itself is misleading. RHodes is not currently running against the incumbent, despite what his campaign rhetoric may imply, he is vying for the change to challenge the incumbent in the general election. However the long standing guidelines are that even major party nominees for congress and not default notable, much less people just running for the nomination. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wasabi,the,one. If not, then delete for failing to meet notability requirements as already explained well in comments above. Peacock ( talk) 13:00, 19 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! 18:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kristian Marolt

Kristian Marolt (  | 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:NSINGER and the sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. Most are very short and far from in-depth or just mention him as having been part of a non-notable boys band or covers his unsuccessful participation in Pop Idol in 2011 (axed after 2nd live) Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
His single Prava Prilika has been presented on a compilation album under the Croatia Records label, entitled Fresh Travanj, 2015. 01/03. Maybe I should add more information under the section Avanti on the article that are mentioned on Croatian language? There are still some sources that I had already mentioned, that are mainly based on his career and personal life (news like 24sata, Večernji list, Index.hr and etc.). He also was a guest on a radio called Antena Zadar (new source can be found under the references). There is an article on his high school website about him preforming a song on a Tribute to John Lennon event. He also preformed on a concert called Koncert Romana Pavliša i prijatelji. The preformance was sponsored by Radio Drava and Koprivnica.net. -- Intelinsidehp ( talk) 18:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only article produced by the search tools was a brief mention on what appears to be a music industry website from (likely) Croatia, so the search included his own part of the world. Lack of Wikipedia level notoriety = delete. Tapered ( talk) 07:25, 19 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) 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dr.R.Mahendran

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

So the subject received press coverage in The Hindu but other than this, lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Therefore the subject does not appear to meet GNG. Saqib ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- There's more coverage than the one article noted by nom from The Hindu. There are these two, also from The Hindu: [16], [17]. There's also this, which doesn't seem to be online:
  • Inter-crop model may cushion impact of vanilla price swings Economic Times, The (Mumbai, India) - September 7, 2004
Thus meets GNG. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
OK none of the coverage discuss the subject directly and in-depth. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You just made up the "in-depth" part. WP:GNG requires that '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' That means that Sig Cov has statements that are directly about the subject. It also means that the criterion is solely based on whether the RS can be used to establish facts about the subject. These can. Furthermore, as GNG reminds us, " it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Contra your misleading claim, there is no requirement that Sig Cov discuss subject in-depth and all three of these sources discuss subject in detail so that no OR is needed to extract content and the fact that the subject is not the main topic of the RS is, explicitly per GNG, irrelevant. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It's fine that you don't think the provided sources meet the criterion for establishing notability, but no one here is talking about sources to support claims within an article except for you. You said they need to be "in-depth." I quoted GNG to prove that in fact, sources to establish notability DO NOT have to be "in-depth." They have to be "in detail." It's a very different thing, and our AfD process is not well-served by you materially altering the requirements of the notability criterion in your comments. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Trivial coverage in the form of a news-stories is hardly encyclopedically notable, given it's abundance, now-a-days, and is not enough to establish the WP:N. -- Saqib ( talk) 06:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abote2 ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abote2 ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even the form of the article name shouts that this is probably a problematic promotional article. The sourcing is clearly not enough for GNG, but even if it was this article would still suffer from acting as a promotionalist platform. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to advertise their specific organic farming endevors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non notable and almost totally promotional DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 21 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Aropa Records

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Dash Berlin, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG. KingAnd God 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No indications of notability, no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP.
  • Delete: fails WP:NCORP. The label was wound up in 2014 – the only one of its 42 releases that charted anywhere was the very first one, "Man on the Run", which made no. 38 in the Netherlands. No sources found that describe the label in detail. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:36, 23 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Steve Woods (politician)

Steve Woods (politician) (  | 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 politician. Woods was a local town councilman who attempted to run for wider office on several occasions (state senate on two occasions and governor on another). In all contests, he dropped out or lost during the primary process. The coverage he received is not beyond the standard level of local coverage any candidate might expect, but as he never managed to win any of his larger races, I'd argue that he does not meet WP:NPOL. As an aside, and probably largely unrelated, the article was recently PROD'ed with the rationale that "The person listed in this article no longer wishes it to be published." That PROD was declined (by me) as an invalid reason to delete the article, but further examination of its actual content lead me to this AFD nomination. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Serving on the municipal council of a town with a population of less than 10K is not an automatic pass over WP:NPOL #2, and only one reliable source here is actually covering him in that context, which is not enough to make a smalltown municipal councillor a special case over and above most other smalltown municipal councillors. And people don't get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates, either — if a person doesn't win election to, and thereby hold, an office that passes NPOL #1, then he has to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons, and the amount of sourcing shown here for the candidacies is, once again, not nearly enough to make his candidacies somehow more notable than most other candidacies. And nominator is correct that "the subject doesn't want an article" isn't a valid reason for prod, because sometimes that has been tried by people who have a strong enough notability claim that we have to overrule their wish — but per WP:BIODEL it can be taken into account in an AFD discussion if a genuinely strong notability claim isn't really in play, and nothing here is a particularly strong notability claim. Bearcat ( talk) 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't meet NPOL per Bearcat; no claim of meeting GNG apart from the coverage of failed political campaigns. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:05, 17 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. Per anlysis of sources in discussion Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

University of Alberta Outdoors Club

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

My Google Search returned primarily sources within the University of Alberta domain, as well as a couple of social media websites. No independent coverage in reliable sources appears to exist, causing this to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 12:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • per nom - sources are almost entirely OR, social media, OR from other unis doing events with them. There is a single mention in a book I found on the history of the group, but a literal line only. No notability established. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I have added reliable independent sources from from the Peel's Prairie Provinces as well as written out part of what makes this club relevant and note-worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N64kidg ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - flickering views on my behalf, apologies. So Gateway is the (old?) student newspaper. Certainly the altered set-up is backed-up more, but with potentially unreliably source. Some of the city stuff might have alternate sources - I will have a look tomorrow. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ N64kidg and Nosebagbear: The newly added sources don't establish notability, as they fail to meet WP:NORG, which reads: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." I have seen no articles from sources outside of Edmonton. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 02:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 11:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a student union club, the refs are mostly primary with some local coverage that doesn't establish notability, nothing i can see on google that is different from that which is already in the article. Recently created by an spa. Szzuk ( talk) 15:53, 24 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 WP:CSD#A7 ( non-admin closure) Septrillion ( talk) 22:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

CleanMail Antispam

CleanMail Antispam (  | 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:NSOFT. Should really be speediable. SmartSE ( talk) 12:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:20, 17 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Chad Focus

Chad Focus (  | 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 and WP:NMUSIC, possibly with WP:TOOSOON mixed in given they debuted in 2017. The subject has as of yet produced one single which reached #47 on a chart in the US, which is far below the threshold set by Wikipedia's criteria for notable musicians. No other claims to significance are made and a search turns up few results, indicating a WP:SIGCOV (GNG) failure. In short, a musician who debuted with one single in 2017 that has not accrued the in-depth coverage required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 ( talk) 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Correct, but I remain of the mindset that a single (and relatively recent at that) album is not in itself an indication of notability. Note that NMUSIC posits that musicians may be notable if they fulfill the criteria of the guidline. And what of the seeming failure of WP:GNG?-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 03:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:N states "a topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. In this case, it has passed the subject-specific guideline and thus, merits an article without needing to pass WP:GNG as the guideline asserts that. KingAnd God 04:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now: The song Dance with Me hit the chart (week of 04-07-2018) at #47 (top 100) and climbed to #36 (week of 04-14-2018) in one week. I am NOT a fan of recentism or breaking news as we shouldn't rush to create articles ---but--- then we shouldn't rush to delete them either. I also think that any exclusion to GNG cannot over-ride the criteria and mandate concerning a WP:BLP so care should be used when a person is involve. This becomes Wikipedia problematic when an article is actually a pseudo biagraphy. In this case we have a VERY poorly written "wanna-a-be" biagraphy of a newer artist than can be fixed by edits. Notability can be established by the chart records and the Dance with Me video but the there would be concerns of violating WP:BIO1E. The artist also has the video RapXclusive (video): Get to the Money by Chad Focus and there is a Chad Focus bio (Hiphoprapscene). I think there is enough sourcing to present notability even though it really was WP:TOOSOON to create the article. The options now would be to leave as an article, userfy, or place in a draft. I would classify this a a "too soon" but let's "wait a while and see", since it is here, and I think wait and see is justified. Otr500 ( talk) 03:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 12:21, 16 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Molana Ghazanfar ali Rizvi

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

My Google Search returned primarily YouTube videos and social media, with no coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Also, this person is but the vice-president of a redlinked University, meaning he also fails WP:NACADEMICS. In a way, this is more of a promotional page/resume (he "received education from highly educated teachers" and "is also a very good poet") than an encyclopedic article. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 11:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Aye, I did try. RetroCraft314 removed it; I'm not sure if he meant to decline it or did so by accident while performing general clean-up, but you aren't supposed to nominate them for CSD again using the same criteria. So now we're here. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Compassionate727: Looking over revision history, it appears that I did. Was definitely an accident, my apologies. I'll try and be more careful :) < RetroCraft314 talk/> 02:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dirty subsidy

Dirty subsidy (  | 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 came across this after I nominated Dirty Subsidy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy. My reasons are the same. The term "dirty subsidy" seems to original research, ie this is basically an essay using sources that don't use the term. It's interesting but we shouldn't be creating neologisms. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 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. Rough consensus to keep, this looks like a HEY with foreign sources coming to light. No point relisting, as it's likely to SNOW. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 00:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Andrijana Janevska

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

Not a notable musician. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. KingAnd God 10:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 11:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:08, 17 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 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dark Winter (Fateweaver Series)

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

Self-published book of non notable author – Ammarpad ( talk) 10:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:25, 16 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 the absence of any sources that verify any of the claims to notability. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bauxite Junction, Arkansas

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

GNIS claims that this is a "populated place". Every real reference to this says that it is the "station" where the Bauxite and Northern Railway meets the Union Pacific. Are railroad junctions and other such spots-on-the-rails notable in their own rights? If so, I can fill up a lot of pages with them. Anyway, there's no town or house or anything here except rails and trees, and what appears to be a alumina processing plant to the south. Mangoe ( talk) 10:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
There's no station building there, nor have passenger trains likely ever stopped there. "Station" in this case means "named spot on the line" which, a hundred years ago, would have needed someone to operate switches/signals. Mangoe ( talk) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Except its not just a "spot on the line. "The Aluminum Company of America and the Reynolds Metals Company use large volumes of crushed stone as a fluxing agent in refining crude ore in the production of aluminum at Bauxite Junction, Arkansas". It's been a busy junction and a rail yard was built at the site and it's discussed substantially in many reliable independent sources. "The carrier connects with the Missouri Pacific Railroad (MP) at the Bauxite Junction Yard. The yard is located on the MP's Arkansas Division, 18 miles south of Little Rock, Arkansas. The yard is situated on the south side, parallel to the MP's double main track, and is jointly operated by the two carriers. It consists of eight east/west tracks, connected at both ends. The track grade in the yard descends from west to east at a rate of 0.55 percent. Cars are interchanged by MP train crews at ...". It's been involved in district court cases and in fatalities. FloridaArmy ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If you could be bothered to reference this properly and make a claim of notability in the article, it would probably not even have been nominated for deletion. As it stands, I'm not going to vote keep. Deb ( talk) 08:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It's miles from Bauxite and is home to a rail junction. FloridaArmy ( talk) 00:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not every rail junction is notable. We lack an article on Utica Junction, Michigan, which was the railway stop to go to Utica, Michigan, about 10 miles from Utica by Utica Road. The area was not just a railway station, but an inhabited area, although it has since been incorpaorated into Roseville, Michigan, an article which does not adequately cover the unique and historic character of Utica Junction t present either. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment I am open to turning this into a redirect to the short line involved and editing that article accordingly (there's pretty much nothing in the current article that's usable). I really cannot see how the spot is independently notable, however. Mangoe ( talk) 18:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Good idea. FloridaArmy ( talk) 19:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by proposer. — CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

James Holloway (historian)

James Holloway (historian) (  | 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 have concern about past versions (I would reload the third version or current version if people agree that it should be deleted and if people think that is right.). My main concern is that the info in education and personal life (may breach privacy, particularly the bit about owning a ducatti that was on the fourth page I published, I think that the third page combined with the better referencing of Derek R Bullamore would be better) is not needed on a biographical page and is based on only one article. Please advise me because I am not an experienced editor and am unsure of the correct procedure. Rig15 ( talk) 09:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep deletion discussions are not generally for editing issues. Details about his motorcycle can be addressed by normal editing, talk page discussion and perhaps the BLP noticeboard. FloridaArmy ( talk) 12:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't understand your concerns but you can request oversight of content if it violate personal privacy. Saying what kind of motorcycle he owns is an issue? FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It seems a bit of breach of privacy to me in hindsight. How could I get an oversight revision deletion for the fourth revision that I made. Rig15 ( talk) 14:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree with you that editing the revision is the appropriate thing to do, therefore I will delete the proposed deletion of the page Rig15 ( talk) 15:09, 16 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dr Anurag Agarwal

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

Speedy declined. Issues with notability. Beyond a couple minor local news awards there's not much coverage in reliable secondary sources. I'm sure the fellow is an excellent surgeon but I'm just not seeing what makes him stand apart. œ ™ 10:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

please go through the links and you will see that he is notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorsre ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 06:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Tai Abbett

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

Not notable. "Creative evangelist of Google" is a largely meaningless title that is likely puffed-up by the subject; I don't see any independent references that use it or suggest it has any importance. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 09:48, 16 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Electron liquid

Electron liquid (  | 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 is not clear. The terms like jellium, Thomas-Fermi, free electron model and Fermi liquid have already existing articles. Most of the content in the article is covered in Jellium and seems like a rephrasing. Additionally, no sources. MaoGo ( talk) 09:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment A quick survey does not convince me that this and jellium are the same thing, and I have a certain mistrust of both articles as a result. It's perfectly clear that people publish plenty on on electron liquid behavior. Possibly someone knowledgeable could WP:TNT this and start over. Mangoe ( talk) 12:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
We could wait for someone more involved with this kind of terms. For what I've seen, papers refer to EL to discuss a gas with interactions, which usually leads to jellium or Fermi liquid theory (or some other specific model). What I meant in the lead is that Jellium article seems to discuss the same things as the current EL article. -- MaoGo ( talk) 12:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Looking at the GScholar hits, I'm questioning whether the jellium article should be where this is discussed. If you search for both terms, you only get about 750 hits, but "jellium" separately produces some 22k hits, and these seem to be specifically about metals, whereas "electron liquid" produces around 11k hits, and those seem to be about electrons in semiconductors as well as in metals. At any rate they seem to be related but distinct ideas. Mangoe ( talk) 16:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure. But the current article is not clear about the topic and its definition. If someone knows a clear distinction I'm also ok with the TNT. -- MaoGo ( talk) 11:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Jellium is a pretty standard term. Take for example the Marder, Condensed Matter: [32]. -- MaoGo ( talk) 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 18:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Edith Nakalema

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

Not seeing anything to make this person notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER and the rest reads like a normal career army officer Gbawden ( talk) 09:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: She has been commented on in several secondary sources which is usual for a women from the Ugandan military.-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Delete. No notability whatsoever. Just someone doing her job. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp: - your bolded !vote here doesn't quite match the rationale. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Whoops! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Keep. Reconsidering. Despite her relatively lowly rank, she does seem to have been a significant and influential figure in the Ugandan government. Not really emphasised in the article itself (which just presents her as a mid-ranking officer without much notability), but I admit that the media coverage does suggest a different story. In all fairness, I suspect a figure in Britain or America with this profile would be kept. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    The claim to notability, such as it is, is due to her being the Personal Assistant to the President between Nov 2016 [33] and June 2017 [34] - and that should probably be made clearer in the article as well. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A major doesn't pass SOLDIER. President’s Private Secretary doesn't pass NPOL. And she doesn't have anything close to SIGCOV - some coverage mentioning her in her previous political role, some coverage of her being sent to the course in the UK - but not at a level approaching SIGCOV. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. @ Necrothesp and @ Icewhiz - Please consider GNG. ATZNA 15:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    I have - saying it failed WP:SIGCOV (another way of saying GNG). In straight up google the name has less than 160 hits (and many aren't about this subject, or aren't RSes in any way shape or form, etc.). In google-news (usually a good metric for the notability of contemporary political/military figures) - we have only 8 hits (and many of them are far from in depth). This is in-depth (on losing her personal secretary position and being sent to training in the UK), this one is mostly low-quality coverage of an event she was help run in the UK on Ugandan culture, this is about the marriage of her brother, in this she gets instructions to do something (mentioned in 2 paragraphs), this one also has brief mentions, this is beyond a paywall but doesn't seem to be about her, brief mentions here, and here we have a one-liner on her appointment as Personal Assistant to the President in Nov 2016 (so basically - she held this job with some power (before being removed to the UK) - for about a year)). I personally apply a bias to African subjects - requiring less coverage than say Westerners - as there are fewer news outlets spitting out news in English out to the web - however this level of coverage (one in-depth piece) - would not pass SIGCOV (or GNG). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm basing this on the fact that her career moves are evidently followed closely in the Ugandan press.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Nakalema is covered adequately (a) here, (b) here and (c) here. Fsmatovu 23:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - She wasn't the president's private secretary. She was the head of the Private Office and Household of the President, an position which carries the title of secretary. To me, the position seems on the order of a Deputy Chief of Staff for the US president. In anycase, the article passes V, NPOV, and NOR, and the subject seems encyclopedic. Smmurphy( Talk) 14:47, 19 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

HogSozzle Music Festival

HogSozzle Music Festival (  | 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 significant coverage in third party reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Contested WP:PROD Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 08:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those cited in the article. FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a small nn festival, one of the refs has pictures of the festival, there's hardly anyone there. Szzuk ( talk) 16:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NEVENTS. There are dozens and dozens of festivals that take place between May and September every year up and down the UK, and most of them are not notable, like this one. The festival started out as literally a barbecue in someone's back garden, and eight years later it isn't much bigger – the site's capacity is 700 people (half the size of the average indoor music venue), which makes it smaller both in terms of size and in notability of the headline acts than the other two festivals which take place on the same site, Wilkestock and Back of Beyond... and those festivals aren't notable either. The one reliable source in the article, from the Hertfordshire Life, is archived here: [35] – but this is a local magazine, and it just lists 50 events taking place within Hertfordshire during the summer of 2013, which must be just about every event in the county that summer, so it doesn't mark this festival out as notable. The other sources are two blogs, and the website of another event that takes place on the same site. All sources online appear to be either event listings or ticket websites. Article was created by a SPA, Team Ridiculous, which just happens to be the name of the organisational team behind the festival – I strongly suspect the team created the article as promotional material for the 2014 event, and have never bothered to update it since then. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as lacking independent in depth sourcing. Oops I did it again ( talk) 22:37, 23 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. Basing this on the refutation of the sources and giving preference to established voters Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Khalil Al Qaheri

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

so basically an entrepreneur and founder of some non-notable entities but fails to meet basic GNG. I could not locate even trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. most of the cited sources are in Arabic and appears not solid sources. Saqib ( talk) 08:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 08:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 08:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I just listed a part of sources to checking out. Elina ( talk) 12:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Elina is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply

  • I'm afraid some of the provided references are not independent RS and literary none of the several reference discusses the subject directly and in-detail thus fails GNG. -- Saqib ( talk) 13:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: sources directly are talking about subject of article and the companies which he is founder or ceo of them. i believe that you can′t find more relible website in Bahrain than this website http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/617766 in Bahrain. as I checked other Arab businessman′s articles, usually they use several sources in Arabic and they are founder or ceo of a company. aslo I provided reliable sources in english and Arabic. many news have been published about him in Arabic in reliable News websites, due to the company which he has founded, is the first company in Bahrain in its career. most of sources are talking about him directly and couple of them are talking about the companies which he is serving in them. the title of some of news are his name, you can reed and get they are talking about subject of article directly. these can prove his notability as well as other businessmans or entrepreneur. also I founded several others sources that I think we dont need to add them because current sources are enough. my native language is Arabic and Ive checked Arabic sources and Arabic article which has published on Arabic wikipedia about this person. this article meet GNG as a businessman or entrepreneur. regards. Elina ( talk) 18:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
And where are those sources which discusses the subject directly and in-detail? I'm afraid one cannot establish the notability by merely saying that subject meets GNG. -- Saqib ( talk) 06:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: when you ask a question on wikipedia, if you are not writing on his talk page, you should ping him by using Template:Reply to, by this way he will recieve your message and will reply you. due to you didnt ping me I didnt recieve your message,although this page is on my watchlist, i dont check my watchlist everyday, also you havnt ping following person who has voted about article. AS I know as a Arab person, the Arabic links which I listed for you, has published on the most reiable and famous News paper in Arab world and they dont publish fake News. the sources which has used on Arabic Wikipedia for same person are several of sources which i listed you and Arrabic wikipedia didnt say that the News are not talking directly even their native language is Arabic, so how you fuss the Arabic sources and telling their not reliable?! if they are not reliable so why Arabic wikipedia has accepted article which are very intransigent against biography of Arab people?! as me and you know the sources should not be only in english they can be on each language. im telling you for third times this link http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/617766 is published on the most reliable news agancy in Bahrain which always publish important news, and is directily talking about the subject and companies. about following person, i searched Ebdaa Hub on google and I saw several News about it which is talking that this company is the first company in Bahrain on its career. if you cant see, change your browser or device which you are searching by it. Elina ( talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Katio33: You seems to misunderstanding my point. I repeat, the subject has not received significant coverage but merely some mentions which is namechecking and not enough to establish the WP:N. -- Saqib ( talk) 04:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: you have told me the sources are not talking about subject directly and i replied that to you. also you have asked about Ebdaa Hub from following person and didnt ping him to reply you so I replied you. about this new point which you wrote recently, please explaine mor which is the problem exactly? sources or cotext? yo improve it. Elina ( talk) 07:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well i think you dont seems to understand my points so I'm done. Let's leave it upto the closing admin to decide. -- Saqib ( talk) 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
How's Ebdaa Hub a notable company. Google search does not produce any coverage about the organisation in independent RS. Anyways, we're not talking about company but the personality. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
since you havnt ping this person so he wont reply you. so I gonna reply you. if you search Ebdaa Hub on google you will find several news about that about being first company in Bahrain in its career. as I found and as this person found. Elina ( talk) 07:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them. The onos in on you to establish the WP:N. -- Saqib ( talk) 07:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
these sources are About Ebdaa Hub * http://www.newsofbahrain.com/viewNews.php?ppId=42283
* http://startupbahrain.com/newsfeatures/first-batch-bahraini-entrepreneurs-graduate-entrepreneurship-camp/
http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/835354
* http://www.gdnonline.com/Details/346401/Business-Clinic-to-back-1,000-Bahraini-SMEs
* http://www.alayam.com/alayam/economic/721261/News.html
* http://alwatannews.net/article/760824/Business/%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8-27-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A8-%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84-%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AA%D8%A3%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84
* https://www.zawya.com/mena/ar/story/%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A9_%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85_%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B3_%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84_%D9%88%D8%A5%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B2_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B7%D8%A9_-ZAWYA20171019072741/
* http://www.albiladpress.com/news/2018/3464/finance/490377.html
these websites are used on Arabic wikipedia as reliable sources that you said most of the cited sources are in Arabic and appears not solid sources.these are only about Ebdaa Hub . other sources are exist which are about other companies that subject is Ceo of them. Elina ( talk) 09:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep found some reliable references [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] on google. number of valid sources and mentions in the press on the article lead me to believe that the subject meet notability requirements. this biography also was published in Persian Wikipedia ( [44]) as a notable Bahrain businessman and Arabic Wikipedia that was written in more details about subject(its main language of subject). in number of Arabic presses only was written what he said, because of as we read in the article : Al Qaheri is better known for his Entrepreneurship publications on the principles of Bahrain′s mass medias. these sources are his Entrepreneurship articles on Arabic press. Kamran Ali El-Batli ( talk) 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Kamran Ali El-Batli: We have discussed it above that the provided references does not establish the WP:N. I can see the bio exists on Arabic and Persian WP's but the WP:N standards and requirement are slightly different there so having said that, we cannot guarantee a bio on English WP on the basis that the bio exists on other WPs. -- Saqib ( talk) 05:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: it was just my idea about this article, it can be correct or Fals. Kamran Ali El-Batli ( talk) 09:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Another comment by an editor who has made (as of this moment [45]) few other edits outside of AfD. This is relevant given the various suspected sock accounts active at this AfD.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 23:04, 23 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 David E. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jean-Pierre Giroud

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

Sourced only by a wiki entry and a self-penned biographical note - repeating some of the note's peacock descriptions. The article's author has stated "the only reliable source about the article can be obtained by his own page" - obviously not notable. Cabayi ( talk) 08:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Top cites on Google scholar for JP-Giroud (after filtering out the medical ones with a similar author name) are 396, 238, 204, 190, 174, 142, 139, 136, 121, 118, ... with 10 papers having over 100 cites and an h-index of 31. That's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, even if his awards are too low-level for notability that way. And membership in the US National Academy of Engineering (for which I just added a source independent of the subject) is a clear pass of #C3. This article is indeed a mess but that's not an issue for AfD. And the nomination statement about what the author has said about sourcing is also not particularly relevant; it comes across more as one editor's misunderstanding how Wikipedia works than as proof that proper sources are unavailable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:PROF as explained above, but certainly not per WP:ANYBIO. There are over 70 thousand chevaliers in the Légion d'Honneur, and most are not notable. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:43, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Regina Bateson

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this does not make any claim of preexisting notability at all -- all of the content outside of her campaign-related coverage itself is referenced to primary sources, not to any evidence that she was getting media coverage for any of it at the time. And the campaign-related coverage itself does not make a candidate notable just for being a candidate, either — it just makes her a WP:BLP1E, and because every candidate in every election always gets some campaign-related coverage, the existence of that coverage does not automatically get a candidate over WP:GNG all by itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat -- but nothing stated or sourced here entitles her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Tony Nogales ( talk) 06:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'd request in future that the nominator actually write his own nomination statement, instead of copying and pasting one of mine verbatim from another discussion about somebody else — it's not so much that I'm offended at all, as that it can create the appearance that you didn't really evaluate the situation very carefully, but just "templated" your way through a situation that looked equivalent on the surface. But at any rate, it is true that people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — and as of today she isn't even that yet, but is merely a candidate in a primary that hasn't happened yet, which is even less of a basis for notability. But this doesn't demonstrate any strong evidence that she had preexisting notability for other reasons, as her academic career is referenced entirely to primary sources (press releases from the universities she's been affiliated with and one of her own Twitter tweets), not to the reliable source coverage it would take to make her notable for that — and the volume of campaign-specific coverage shown here is not enough to make her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy, either. Bearcat ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As an academic that has been published several times, which have received prestigious awards in her discipline I would suggest keeping this page to reflect her academic accomplishments. These awards are considered prestigious in her disciplines. True that publishing alone is not sufficient enough for notability standards, but the accolades those publications should elevate her. Perhaps strip any references to her public service career. But anything referencing her political campaign should be removed. Criteria in WP:PROF states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." She meets at least one condition, condition "2", with two of the highest awards given from the premier journal communities in her disciplines. If these awards do not fully fulfill condition "2" (for their national or international qualifiers) then that is a different story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6BA0:D240:304B:5E63:8DAC:ABF9 ( talk) 00:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN. She has left academia without sufficient publication record to make her notable as a scholar, has, as yet, no achievements as a politician, and does not appear to have attracted SIGCOV for any other reason. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. One well-cited review paper is a good sign for the future of her academic career, but is not enough by itself for WP:PROF#C1. A dissertation award and a best-paper award are also not enough for #C2; we need something that recognizes her accomplishments more broadly and isn't based only on student work. Her work in the foreign service and her run for congress are not enough for WP:POLITICIAN. And a Q&A in a small local paper (the only source published independently of her and her employers that our article lists) or other routine newspaper coverage of her campaign [46] [47] [48] is not enough for WP:GNG. We can certainly revisit this case if her political campaign succeeds or she moves forward in her academic career, but for now a lot of things that don't individually add up to notability means no notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete an IP editor has removed all mention of her Congressional candidacy, which arguably makes this worse per notability; WP:NPROF clearly isn't met, and the remaining refs aren't independent (largely being press releases of schools she is affiliated with). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 21:57, 18 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Trans intersex

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

Zero WP:Reliable sources for this topic under this term. Violates WP:Notability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:NEO. Editor clearly copied and pasted the format of the leads of the Trans woman and Trans man articles and applied it to this article. This topic is sufficiently covered in the Intersex, Transgender and Sex assignment articles. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 17 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 creation by a blocked or banned user - Beltwrestling-786 blocked in 2016 for spam/promotion, including a previous version of this article. kelapstick( bainuu) 17:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Khalil Ahmed Khan

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

Some promotional BLP which contain a lot of OR. Subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib ( talk) 04:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:49, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Soldierathon

Soldierathon (  | 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 event notability guidelines, for being unable to sustain long-standing coverage in reliable sources.

Typical paid-for-promotion in Indian media circles (coverage in Business Standard, a known culprit).Also, in light of the fact that Hindustan Times is a co-sponsor of the marathon, sadly (but rather predictably), coverage about the event deriving from HTimes has to be discarded lack of intellectual independency.

Barring a Tribune piece covering the winner of the marathon in 2 paragraphs and a TOI piece covering the event in the trivialest of manners, (as mentioning a local event in a city), I fail to spot anything else.

I would also note that the article-creator does not seem to have a very good idea about one of our most sacrosanct policies.

Anyways, nothing more significant than the marathons happening in every other corner of India with a host of big names. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades Godric 06:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This single event received some routine press coverage (obviously) but clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:EVENT. Both the duration and depth of press coverage was limited. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. So Hindustan Times was the organizer therefore we should even consider their coverage because of the COI issues. I found atleast first 3 references as not even RS. @ Devopam: I would suggest you to assume good faith and don't get offended if someone nominate your creation for deletion. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ben-Jacob's bacteria

Ben-Jacob's bacteria (  | 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 term appears to be used in almost no sources, suggesting the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. Appears to largely be promotion of the Ben-Jacobs lab. Useful info in this article on P. dendritiformis and P. vortex is already also at those articles. Term is only currently used in WP mirrors and in a smithsonian mag article (which is using the phrase as a regular possessive phrase, not as a term for these two species). Not used in any papers, suggesting if the term was ever used, it didn't catch on. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. The strains and their behaviour are clearly notable, but as such they have perfectly fine articles at Paenibacillus dendritiformis and Paenibacillus vortex, and these and Eshel Ben-Jacob are well connected in text and links. I don't see any need for merging to the latter, as has been suggested. This is not a bad article but it is simply surplus to requirements. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Weak delete I was expecting to recommend retention when I started reading this one, but I fear this is a WP:Neologism, as there's nothing on Google, GBooks or Google scholar to suggest anything other than an informal grouping of two bacterium taxa. No application of the phrase "Ben-Jacob's bacteria" in search results, suggesting this is not a term in actual use, just a use of the possessive. I was concerned this article's title was the only way in to finding Eshel Ben-Jacob, so I've now created Ben-Jacob as a redirect. I agree with Elmidae that this seems a reasonable article, but just doesn't serve a purpose as the topic is covered in both bacterium articles. I've considered a redirect, but that would suggest the term is in genuine use. I'm slightly concerned that there has been a merge suggested by Northamerica1000 since February to the eponymous biologist, to which noone has responded, yet now we are at a deletion discussion, though I can't see what content would be merged there. And the other bacterium articles are well referenced, but some merging of minor content or sources might be appropriate to each. Nick Moyes ( talk) 15:07, 17 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 Battle of Kars (1745). Consensus seems to be that while it did exist, there isn't much out there to build an article off of, which poses problems for core content policies such as WP:V. Anything verifiable can be merged to the other article. If sufficient sourcing can be found to justify an article on its own, I don't see a consensus here opposing that. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Battle of Mosul (1745)

Battle of Mosul (1745) (  | 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 mentions a battle at Mosul in 1745. Sykes source mentions a siege in 1743(p.268, 3rd edition), but nothing else concerning Mosul. Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No idea. Per Sykes(p.268-269) it mentions the battle of Kars(1745), but no mention of Mosul. Then Sykes talks about The Pioneer Journeys of Elton, 1739-1742. There is no mention of a battle/siege at Mosul in A Global Chronology of Conflict, Vol 2, page 743, which covers the battle of Kars. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 7, page 309, mentions the siege of Mosul in 1743, but no mention of any conflict in 1745. And, Lockhart, Laurence. Nadir Shah: A critical study based mainly upon contemporary sources, used for that mention of "debacle of Mosul", is non-viewable on google books. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Keep Lockhart, Laurence, Nadir Shah: A Critical Study Based Mainly Upon Contemporary Sources (1938) p. 250 ( snippet view) does describe "a striking success [Nadir]'s son Nasrullah had gained over the Turks near Mosul" which a snippet from the index on p. 340 refers to as "victory over the Turks near Mosul in 1745". Some support for some kind of engagement near Mosul in 1745 involving Nasrullah but not for the detail in the article without more. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Another brief mention of Nadir's son having "inflicted a serious defeat on an army of Ottomans and Kurds near Mosul". Axworthy, Michael, Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant (2010) pp. 289-290. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 17:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Another very brief account contains the name of the Turkish commander: "[Nadir's] son meanwhile had gained a complete victory over Abdulla Pasha near Mosul...." Herbert John Maynard, Nadir Shah (1885) p. 49.. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 15:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC) I am coming to the conclusion that all of these accounts derive from Marvi Yazdi, Mohammad Kazem, Alam Ara-ye Naderi (3 vols.) (AAN) ed. Mohammad Amin Riyahi, Tehran (Third edition) 1374/1995, which is cited in the article. I am assuming that this in Persian and have no access to it any event, so it comes down to deciding whether the three brief accounts above are enough to satisfy that this article is no hoax and then relying on WP:AGF, WP:NONENGLISH and WP:SOURCEACCESS to keep the article, which is where I am leaning. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. I'm satisfied this happened (per sources presented by 24.151.116.12 and what I see) - that the son of Nader Shah is reported to have won a victory next to Mosul while the Battle of Kars was ongoing. I am concerned in that the sources we have online in English are fairly short (mainly mentioning that this happened - but not going into the details of the battle) - however I suspect there would be non-English sources here. A merge to Battle of Kars, may also be a viable result. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Batlle of Kars. There does not seem to be enough information to regard it as as sufficiently important incident to call it a battle in a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 18 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Joshua Cox

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actor -- TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 04:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Social IQ score of bacteria

Social IQ score of bacteria (  | 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 page appears to just restate what's in a single scientist's paper. All other references are tangential to the page topic. Searching on GScholar shows this term doesn't seem to have been adopted outside the Ben-Jacob lab. Topic is mentioned in some press releases from scientist's home university, but doesn't meet WP:GNG (not covered in independent sources). Ajpolino ( talk) 04:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge to Eshel Ben-Jacob#Bacterial decision-making. Some good material but not enough secondary coverage for a standalone article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not even mergable, just an individual's attempt to put a cute spin. The cuteness is obvious fdrom the contsnts of the article, which talk about bacteria as if they were conscious and make comparisons with humans. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 20 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Edible Book Festival

Edible Book Festival (  | 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'm not convinced this is anything other than a series of unrelated April Fools jokes. The "Books2Eat.com" website is defunct, but [49] contains some of the content. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC): reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric 03:42, 16 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. Arguments to keep based on assertions carry less weight than analysis of sources. We don't seem to have sources here so have a GNG fail. Tbis means the policy based votes are the delete ones. Note that I was sorely tempted to issue blocks for disrupting the afd with racism allegations. Dial it dkwn please if you want your opinion heard. Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Zainab Ali Nielsen

Zainab Ali Nielsen (  | 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 can't find any significant coverage pre-dating her recent and tragic death. No claim of meeting WP:NMUSIC. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Searching online for info aside from her death brings up practically nothing, so the subject fails WP:ARTIST. Perhaps an article titled "Death/Murder of Zainab Ali Nielsen" is in Wikipedia's future. But, as of yet, we have nothing that establishes independent notability. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with previous comments and am against the deletion. First, Google is not the only source of information, even though I did find news articles that predate her death. Second, online media coverage for African artists is quite limited in Africa and even more elsewhere. In light of this, I doubt that someone can prejudge her notability without looking for diverse sources. -- Maxxies ( talk) 02:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You're right about Google. So, I tried AltaVista and Bing, too, with the same results - meaning: no results. I then tried Aliweb and they said they'll get back to me. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Amended The google search does yield 3 pages of articles about her tragic murder. After that, the articles are not about her. Ergo, no support for her notability. Verdict is still "delete." Tapered ( talk)
Comment I found articles about her from before the murder. Ross-c ( talk) 10:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Do you happen to have sources yourself that do not come up in Google searches? If you do, post them up! If you don't, then your argument is null and void, because, if accepted, it could be used in any case where we have no online sources. - The Gnome ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh, you imagine that Google is everything, you forget Google is trapped in a US-centered matrix of its own making. [54], [55], [56]. So you can take your filthy WP:Systemic bias nomination and withdraw it. Because this article will not be deleted. Abductive ( reasoning) 00:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you should improve your attitude. Start by with assuming good faith from your fellow contributors. Then, learn to be more civil. Next, you could be less arrogant about AfD outcomes. No one knows if this article, of any article, will end up staying up or deleted through the AfD process.
As to that essay about " systemic bias" in Wikipedia, to which you linked, I simply do not agree with its (quite broad) assertions. Wikipedia comes in many languages. And notability differs across different cultures; otherwise we would not have different cultures! This is why we have, for example, artists in Arab Wikipedia or politicians in Russian Wikipedia who are not featured in English Wikipedia, and vice versa. In sum, drop the attitude and try to defend the subject's notability per WP:ARTIST or WP:NMUSIC. So far, and even after your contribution, it's not doing too well. Wikipedia gone done the tighten up, baby. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
No, I will defend the article on the basis of the WP:GNG. Don't try to frame the debate in a WP:battleground attempt to win. Abductive ( reasoning) 06:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, Abductive, I'm not "attacking" anything or anyone, so your use of words such as "defending", "win", etc, is indicative of your approach to this AfD; not mine. Contrary to what the relevant Wikipedia rule dictates about our behavior in an AfD discussion, you are engaging in personal attacks and boorish behavior. Yet, no one here is your enemy. There is no "battleground" here. We don't have "agendas." So, shape up, calm down, and behave. That's the best advice I can offer. Take it.
Back to the substance: You claimed you see "systemic bias" in this discussion. We cannot find sources outside Google and this proves "systemic bias" on our part, supposedly. I responded above that there are bound to be differences between Wikipedia's of different languages. Got any response? Do you deny this? Do you believe that, for example, Claude François is as well known (notable) in France as he is in Nigeria? I hope not. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric 03:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Whatever a 'custom date range on Google' is, none of those is a reliable source. Two appear to be promotional websites, and the ostensible newspaper has long since ceased to be a substantial reliable source. Tapered ( talk) 01:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Because systemic racism unconscious bias (on the part of Google - I would never accuse a fellow user of systemic racism - note what I am leaving out). For clarification, what I am saying is, every internet site in the third world has a certain breathless, "promotional" sound to it. That doesn't make it unreliable. For example, do you doubt she was signed to a Japanese record label? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Getting signed by a Japanese record label is proof of notability? Under which specific Wikipedia rule, please?
By the way, you already accused a "fellow user" of racism, but you forget what you write, perhaps. You wrote, you can take your filthy WP:Systemic bias nomination and withdraw it. Now, you write "systemic racism", then strike it, and write instead "unconscious bias", which you assign to Google. But Google cannot be unconsciously guilty of something! They are deliberate and thorough in their plans and operations. You seem confused; better abandon slurs and personal attacks altogether and focus on the discussion proper. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Promotional is promotional in Tierra del Fuego. The newspaper in question was once a reliable source, as are some other Lagos papers. Its Wikipedia article (well sourced) traces its decline. Tapered ( talk) 05:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Ross-c, if you cannot see on your own that the texts in all these links are pure, unadulterated promotion, no one can convince you they are. So I won't try. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
An article titled Murder of Zainab Ali Nielsen could/should probably exist in the near future. But, aside from the murder, this is, on its own, a non-notable subject, according to Wikipedia rules. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I would have no objection to moving the article to that title. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not basing my keep recommendation on the content of the news articles. Just that she has received coverage in notable national publications, and therefore meets WP:GNG. I feel that this discussion has been adversely affected by people who seem to be emotionally invested in the outcome and aren't viewing the decision objectively. Ross-c ( talk) 09:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, aside from the substance of your argument, which may be right or may be wrong, it was evident that the discussion would heat up as soon as slurs like "filthy" "racism" (: "systemic bias") surfaced here as "arguments." Let's hope it all simmers down. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I didn't use any such terms, nor have I raised issues of linguistic and national inequality within Wikipedia in this discussion. Hence, I don't know why you are raising this with me. I'm concerned that you see this as a battle that you wish to win, rather than an objective discussion concerning whether the article should stay or be deleted. Ross-c ( talk) 12:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm referring to the hideous commentary by Abductive, as above. I witnessed no inflammatory or emotionally involved attitude from your part at all. (My comment about the promotional nature of the texts you consider as valid sources is a simple disagreements of opinion. Abductive, essentially, accused all who believe the article should be deleted as racists.) - The Gnome ( talk) 12:18, 17 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rob Cryston

Rob Cryston (  | 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. The awards / categories listed, such as List of gay pornography_awards#Gay_Erotic_Video_Awards, are not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:44, 16 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. Created by a blocked user evading their block Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

837 AM (Cauayan)

837 AM (Cauayan) (  | 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 WP:CRYSTAL, radio station does not exist quite yet. Either way, definitely doesn't meet WP:NRADIO or WP:GNG for that matter. < RetroCraft314 talk/> 03:06, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Cristina Bella

Cristina Bella (  | 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 PR 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 category listed "Nifta Award winner – Best European Starlet" is not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:43, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Open-source learning

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

Advert for Preston and his brand. Orange Mike | Talk 02:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I suggest retaining the entry but using the new text now in place: Following Wikipedia guidelines (which I should have known when I wrote the original article five years ago), I have posted a completely revised entry and references about Open Source Learning, focusing entirely on the specifics of the methodology. This new entry summarizes educational practices in the United States and England in teaching a variety of subjects, and for several age groups, that make Open-Source Learning (or the same methods with other names) notable for their use in the conventional classroom as well as in lifelong learning programs. Hlebo Hlebo ( talk) 05:02, 19 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! 18:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Run the World

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

Never charted so fails WP:NSONGS. Fails WP:GNG too as all sources in the article apart from one are album reviews ( coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability) or WP:primary. The best source is this which consists of a single sentence and a audio clip of the song. AIRcorn  (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) AIRcorn  (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment only. Firstly a reading of WP:NSONGS will confirm that it is not only charting songs that are notable. Otherwise we'd have to delete all National Anthems and School songs. I felt that an article that had made it to GA should not be turned into a redirect because one editor decided it was the right thing to do, but should come for a community decision. That is why I reverted. I am happy for the community to decide, so I am not commenting on the success or failure of the nomination although I'd like to see other people comment. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Sure, that is why I followed it with fails GNG too. I won't argue the redirect again, but it should be noted here that being a Good Article does not confer any special advantages to an article. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Nobody has claimed it should have special status because it was a Good Article, only that a community decision should be reappraised by another community decision. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the refs in the article aren't up to much and there was also a DRV after the first AfD which closed endorse keep, I can't find much on google but I'm still reluctant to vote delete. Szzuk ( talk) 11:12, 24 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 Tom Collins. Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Juan Collins

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

Just a recipe ( WP:NOT), no evidence of notability. Could be merged/redirected to Tom Collins. There being many websites that provide cocktail recipes does not count as substantial coverage toward notability. Reywas92 Talk 17:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:37, 16 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. After two weeks, all we have is a bunch of squabbling, and no real discussion of the merits of the list. Relisting it for another weeks seem pointless. If people want to redirect this, discuss that on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Lists of Tamil-language media in Malaysia

Lists of Tamil-language media in Malaysia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clearly WP:Listcruft and moreover this is not exactly Lists but a directory. Saqib ( talk) 08:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
With respect I not making any personal attack on you other to point out that you have been suspected of socking. Concerning this list, WP is an encyclopedia and therefore I think this list doesn't belong anywhere here. I'm afraid if we're going to keep such lists then a vast number of things can be turned into lists. What would be next ? Lists of Tamil-language media in Thailand, Lists of Tamil-language media in Singapore, Lists of Tamil-language media in Vietnam.. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I suspect you of socking. Please don't take it personally. Note to humorless admins: This is a JOKE. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If it make sense, we can merge and Redirect this to List of television stations in Malaysia, since this list mentions only TV stations. What do you say? -- Saqib ( talk) 11:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:34, 16 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. After two weeks, all we have is a bunch of squabbling, and no real discussion of the merits of the list. Relisting it for another weeks seem pointless. If people want to redirect this, discuss that on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Lists of Tamil-language media

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

Listcruft.. i don't see any good reason why such a list is worthwhile. Saqib ( talk) 08:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
With respect I not making any personal attack on you other to point out that you have been suspected of socking. Concerning this list, WP is an encyclopedia and therefore I think this list doesn't belong anywhere here. I'm afraid if we're going to keep such lists then a vast number of things can be turned into lists. What would be next ? Lists of Hindi-language media, Lists of Urdu-language media, Lists of Bengali-language media, Lists of Telugu-language media, Lists of Marathi-language media. ? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Right. You're not attacking me. You're just stating a fact when you say that there's an open SPI on me and the fact that you completely neglected to mention that it's been open forever and has gained no traction whatsoever was what? An oversight? Get for real. Now, your argument in that comment is bankrupt. First of all, each article is judged on its own notability. Whether or not this one is kept isn't going to affect how your other hypotheticals turn out. Second, this is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's a list of lists. We have policy, cited by me and unaddressed by you, that explains why this kind of thing is notable. Second, it's not a directory. If you read the policy you're hinting at there you failed to understand it. Really, at this point the only decent thing to do is to withdraw the nomination as, even after all this talk, you have still failed to propound valid reasons for deletion. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If it make sense, we can merge and Redirect this to Media in Chennai. What do you say? -- Saqib ( talk) 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:34, 16 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) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ray Cowdery

Ray Cowdery (  | 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 was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Insufficient sources to establish notability per WP:CREATIVE. Amazon is not a WP:RS. Authors' own works are not acceptable as notability sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 02:43, 16 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) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I would like to cite Wikipedia: Pillar no. 5: No firm rules — Spirit must matter more than strict adherence to the letter of the law. The Fifth Pillar even goes sofar as to link directly to the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
In my opinion, Wikipedia as a whole benefits more from keeping the article, than losing it. -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 08:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Funny — when I engaged to the fundraising appeal banner, to make a donation yesterday, the page displayed this quote from Jimbo Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all knowledge."
Somehow doesn't sound like he cares more about criteria than about information to me ?? -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 14:26, 18 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) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hussain Al-Khabbaz

Hussain Al-Khabbaz (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:32, 16 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) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jerry Umberger

Jerry Umberger (  | 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 John from Idegon ( talk) 01:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 16 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) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

T. T. A. Parasuram

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

Despite several prods being removed, I can't even find a single source to support that this person existed. The two included make no mention of this person under any name and do not support anything that they cite. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Fails A7, has a credible claim of notability. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 16 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Stanley Ocitti

Stanley Ocitti (  | 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:NBASKETBALL, contested Prod. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete, although there is a lot of complete information, I'm not getting many web results about this particular player. startTerminal ( haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 00:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:SPORTCRIT as having "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" through FIBA. This is no different than a soccer player representing their country in an international tournament.-- TM 01:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment I do not agree that this passage from WP:SPORTCRIT suggests blanket notability for those playing at the highest level of every sport in every country - every sport has different standards of what the "highest level" is in their individual SSGs. These are listed at WP:NBASKETBALL. You absolutely cannot make a blanket statement that professional athletes at the highest level of any country are notable. The example is the Olympics, which is a broad "highest level" for amateur competition (historically anyway). You need to demonstrate that this subject meets WP:GNG in my opinion (because even if he meets the sport guideline he would sill need to meet GNG to be notable). FIBA Africa isn't the highest level anyway, it is a qualification tournament for the FIBA World Cup - has he played in that? Rikster2 ( talk) 20:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, AfroBasket is a continental championship, like EuroBasket. The qualification for the World Cup has changed throughout the years and today there is a separate qualification tournament for the it. It is true that the top teams qualify for the Olympics but then again, countries participating in basketball at the Olympics qualify for the continental championships. Dammit_steve ( talk) 14:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It is still not a top level tournament in my eyes - that’s just the World Cup and Olympics (world scope, not continental scope) for basketball. And in my opinion we shouldn’t be trying to game the “general criteria” of the guideline when Sports specific guidelines and GNG exist. Rikster2 ( talk) 16:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It is for African countries and every bit as major as any regional international tournament. Would you say the same for UEFA European Championship or is it just an African thing?-- TM 22:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a regional tournament, not a major tournament like the Olympics or the World Cup. Regional basketball tournaments dont have that level of notabilty. Spanneraol ( talk) 23:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The winner of the tournament qualifies for the Olympics. So again, are you saying that regional qualifying tournaments are not major tournaments or are you arguing that Africa's highest international competition specifically should be excluded?-- TM 23:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, the winner goes to the Olympics, which would be the highest level competition. Rikster2 ( talk) 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
None of the regional qualifying tournaments should qualify. Spanneraol ( talk) 23:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It is not a regional qualifying tournament, it is continental championship. Dammit_steve ( talk) 14:05, 18 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) 14:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rana Mazumder

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

Lousy sources. Just two sources which link leads to nothing. A vanity-BLP to me. I googled the singer and found a few youtube videos and nothing in-depth as RS. EROS message 11:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I agree. However I feel like we should try expanding the article or try to find sources to provide notability instead of getting it through AfD without trying to improve the article, just my opinion, thanks. ATZNA 14:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The article has been online for over 8 years, I think we should refresh the article, if sources are not found then I would agree with your vote.Thanks. ATZNA 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The search tools produce quite a few mentions in articles for "news" and "Jstor," however nothing close to dedicated. An IMDb search indicates a playback singer busy in Bangladeshi cinema for about 10 years, but who hasn't yet reached the threshold for Wikipedia notability. Tapered ( talk) 07:13, 19 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) 14:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kichu Na Bola Kotha

Kichu Na Bola Kotha (  | 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 cited. I googled the film online and found renowned Indian press, Times of India but it hardly has any depth in it and is rather like an IMBD listing. Other sites include deezer. No RS with significant coverage. EROS message 11:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:11, 16 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_16&oldid=1142617238"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 April 17 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Trenton Technology

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

Obvious advertising is obvious. Available sources are weak at best. Mostly passing mentions and press releases. Some of the best of what's available is things like this, local coverage about routine business activities. The only possible redirect I see is PICMG but it too is poorly sourced and overall advertorial, and tangentially related to boot. Not sure it's worth it really. GMG talk 23:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:57, 17 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Simon Webb (composer)

Simon Webb (composer) (  | 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 major author of this article is the subject. It cites only one independent source, which is a mere namecheck. Google doesn't provide much more. I don't think there are sufficient non-trivial independent sources for a biography. Guy ( Help!) 22:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:58, 17 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. I'm not averse to undeleting if further sourcing emerges or it becomes NOTTOOSOON Spartaz Humbug! 18:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Morgan Dameron

Morgan Dameron (  | 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 director. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other criteria Livilnius ( talk) 22:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:02, 17 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. Quite apart from any consideration of notability, the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet: See CSD G5. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Brazilian Science Protests

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

First, I get no hits for "Brazilian Science Protest" so this is poorly named to begin with, but the one article about this specific protest does not mention the March for Science as the protest occurred in 2016. This is OR in an attempt to justify the significance of this one event. Brazil's actions could be included at March for Science if other articles available tie recent happenings in Brazil to the "March for Science movement", but these Science mag and NPR articles from after the March for Science occurred don't even mention it. Rhinopias ( talk) 22:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Addition: my text "does not mention the March for Science" is in reference to an older version which was changed after the nomination. Rhinopias ( talk) 16:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Seraphim System ( talk) 08:06, 19 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. Clear consensus that the article satisfies GNG. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 00:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Innovation Credit Union

Innovation Credit Union (  | 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 initially PROD'd this, but the references were improved, so I'm letting the community decide. The references added appear to be routine coverage, and to non-reliable sources. Admittedly, the Battlefords Now write-up seems pretty solid, but even with that, it falls short of corporate notability requirements. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I approved this as a notable topic. Credit Unions are a much bigger deal in Canada, often one of the primary financial institutions in their trading area, unlike in the US. This particular credit union was half of a Supreme Court of Canada case Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union which gives it additional coverage beyond what regular long standing credit unions get. Credit Unions are also regulated amd deposits insured so there is RS coverage there far beyond typical private businesses. I'm sure with some searching many many reliable sources going back many years can be brought forward for this topic and its predecessor organizations. Remember this is a 50,000 member owned organization with a long history - surely there is some corporate spam that is more pressing to delete. Legacypac ( talk) 22:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Notability isn't inherited, being involved in a federal law suit doesn't make the subject automatically notable. I also don't see how "50,000 member owned organization with a long history" qualifies it under WP:NCORP. If you feel there's more coverage out there, I implore you to add it to the article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
As per my nomination, I agree the Battlefords Now write-up is descent coverage, the other two seem to fall under routine coverage. Both the other articles discuss the same topic, the vote for them to become federal, as opposed to coverage about the subject itself. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Mind sharing your thoughts on why? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply


Edit conflict. There seems to be some confusion between being "involved in a federal lawsuit" and being a title party in a precident setting Supreme Court of Canada case. This organization's three main counterparts all have articles as well. 50,000 owners is not insignificant but on par with many public companies. Naming rights to a WHL arena, long history that generates press over time, plenty of community sponsorships and donations all add to GNG. I'm sure if one dug in the newspaper archives there would be stories about the credit union going back many years. I don't have any affiliation with ICU but I know how it works for similar credit unions around me. Legacypac ( talk) 17:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Other editors and I have added more sources. The CU holds naming rights for the life of the facility for a 4 part facility in North Battleford as well as the hockey/curling arena in Swift Current. Legacypac ( talk) 06:08, 19 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

PC Engine Best Collection

PC Engine Best Collection (  | 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 video game compilation series. I can't find any RS, mostly just stores. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:42, 16 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

SmileDirectClub

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

Not sure why we kept this the first time. The other discussion is not picked up by the software, as the company had a different name then: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmileCareClub. Per the talk page, this has been subject to an absurd amount of what appears to be UPE or COI editing. Bad refs, including lots of SPS, and the branded pictures! And promotional language. Even if others think the refs are sufficient per NCORP this needs to be rewritten from scratch based on independent, good quality sources. Jytdog ( talk) 21:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog ( talk) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The minor changes from editors in question have been removed. Additionally, it looks like this article is all factual and provides correct information about the company. Even if it was written by the company, should that matter? The most important thing is that the information is correct, and I don't think that anyone outside the company could do a better job of that or provide nearly as much content, anyway. There doesn't seem to be any self promotion to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.24.182.162 ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It appears that representatives of the company made edits to correct and clarify inaccurate information about the company and the aligner therapy treatment. That’s not promotion but factual information. To take it down for making those clarifications and corrections seems overly aggressive and discriminatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.13.82 ( talk) 17:55, 23 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. ( WP:SNOW close). North America 1000 03:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Theodore Bear

Theodore Bear (  | 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 character  GILO    A& E⇑  20:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:45, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Breathe-A-BULL

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

Unencyclopedic stuff. Deletion contested – Ammarpad ( talk) 20:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • @ Pppery: You should contest the deletion here too. – Ammarpad ( talk) 20:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Wikipedia does not have a speedy delete criterion to cover this, but we can ignore all rules and make the rapid determination that one campus' smoking regulations are not the proper material for an entire encyclopedia article. These are not ground-breaking rules that have been the topic of widespread press coverage because of their radical departure from some norms. The author had claimed when contesting the original speedy deletion that "This page is made to inform the public about USF's tobacco and smoke-free policy. As part of my class project was to add to a Wikipedia page with reliable information you have and presenting it. Therefore I have done such and continue to add over the week with reliable information and sources to back it all up." Clearly, an academic assignment where the teacher failed to properly educate the students on the proper uses of Wikipedia. I've informed the author that they and their teacher should refer to WP:SUP. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although I would usually advocate a merge for a topic like this, it just doesn't have a place in the USF article letalone a whole article. startTerminal ( haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 05:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 05:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Nepali newspapers in New York

List of Nepali newspapers in New York (  | 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 list article where not a single one of the entries in the list is notable, i.e. has an article here on en-WP, or even is likely to ever get one, "sourced" only to the non-notable entities themselves... - Tom |  Thomas.W talk 20:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Because the notability of the newspapers themselves is at best suspect, a list of them holds even less notability - an effect not unlike the multiplication of fractions. I also note that the only two "sources" in the article are both dead links. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This might be worth brief mention in Nepali culture in New York but does not merit a stand alone article. The fact that article does not exist tells us that this is putting the cart before the horse at best. The larger topic article needs to be created first. Weather there are enough reliable sources to create that article I do not know. I have to say that a lot of our article on immigrants groups are very weak and rarely based on sources that have studied the topic in a deep and expansive way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:22, 20 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dikpal Karki

Dikpal Karki (  | 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 about a male beauty pageant contestant with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources to prove any kind of notability, as required by WP:GNG, only mentions on beauty pageant fan sites and similar. - Tom |  Thomas.W talk 20:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  21:47, 16 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! 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

B'Ginnings

AfDs for this article:
B'Ginnings (  | 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 deleted in previous AfD with only one !vote for Keep by Evangp. That user then created this article three months later stating they had "removed fluff" so it at least makes a claim to not be CSD:G4. The only source added in this version that is significanlty about the nightclub is a Wordpress blog entry from the local library. All other sources are at best passing mentions. WP:BEFORE discloses no significant coverage. No evidence this qualifies under the general notability guideline or under any applicable subject-specific notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 00:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 00:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
KEEP - Many famous bands played this club. Evangp ( talk)
  • Keep I created the article that was deleted. I am one of the many, many thousands of Wikipedia contributors who nonetheless have many other interests and responsibilities and cannot monitor and "guard" my articles. Props to those who have little else in their life, or have hours a day to devote to Wikipedia. Maybe I will someday. In any event, I am just now seeing that, rather rapidly, an article that had existed for years was deleted, apparently on the initiative of less than a handful of persons.

I believe it is wrong to delete something simply because it is uninteresting to some. B'Ginnings was at least as important as any of many articles I could cite that some of the "pro-delete" faction have authored or contributed to, such as a restaurant that has been open for less than a decade in Chicago. The principal importance of B'Ginnings -- other than being the project of a legitimate rock star, Danny Seraphine -- was that it was one of the VERY FEW venues even available to see rock and roll during its existence, and thus it played an important part in increasing acts' access to a very major (yet very controlled and hard-to-crack) market.

If B'Ginnings had ONLY been the first place that Tom Petty ever played in Chicago it would be significant. Yet a glance at the now-deleted list of acts who played there -- which, as I recall, was admittedly an amateurish scroll (I did not add that feature to he article, others did, attesting to the importance the venue had for a generation) shows that Seraphine and ownership too chances on bringing a number of not-yet-headliners there. The critical role of such "incubator" clubs in artists' careers, and in changing the tastes of the larger audience by exposure to acts they might otherwise not have seen, cannot be overstated.

Chicago mainstream press and radio was in the 1970s considerably more conservative than, say, NY arts media. Relatively speaking, punk was ignored, New Wave was ignored, wavy-power-pop bands struggled to get any airplay and attention. By definition, rock and roll has always had an underground aspect, and punk, again by definition, especially so. Part of music history is simply to chronicle, then let others draw conclusions. Part of the special value of Wikipedia is to allow such chronicling. There are few contemporaneous accounts of many early Delta blues masters; some R&B and jazz artists barely exist in memory or recorded history, yet were very important. There is something disturbing and wrong, arrogant and judgmental, about the creeping overuse of "notability" as thin veil for a difference of taste (at best) or censorship (at worst).

Obscurity is not the same thing as not being notable. Notability has to do with importance, not with fame. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes People magazine. This venue -- again, one of the few midsized venues in Chicagoland at the time, as well as one of the VERY FIRST in the suburbs, and an important milestone in the development of Schaumburg and The Land Beyond O'Hare as more than just Home of Woodfield, see the post at https://ourlocalhistory.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/only-the-beginning-of-the-nightlife-scene-in-schaumburg/, which as the blog of a unit of local government by a professional researcher is, I would submit, a reliable and credible source -- has at least the historic importance of Victoria's Secret Models of 2000-2009. I mean, really. Come on.

The 1970s and 1980s -- the decades immediately predating the Internet -- are very poorly documented online. They were so recent at the WWW's inception that, it seemed, no one saw need to chronicle and archive. Predating millennials' birth, they are deemed unimportant. So there is an Internet bias, and thus a source bias, against many content areas that are, nonetheless, important.

It does disrespect to fellow Wikipedians delete when, clearly, an article is not the vanity work of one person but the type of collective contribution that a forum like this should promote. The smug dismissal of contributors as "fanboys" is needlessly rude. As I recall -- and it's been a while since I visited -- the article had attracted much interest, of which the long laundry list of acts persons had posted serves as evidence. While I did not add the "list" that existed here, I have in fact used the content in it that others posted as a useful reference a couple times over those years. Isn't that why we have encyclopedias, as reference works? A better course would have been to improve the article. Or to mentor some of the contributors in how they could make it better, or become more polished Wikipedians. And I would have liked to have been invited to the conversation more directly.

I thank Evangp for the reinstatement. I will try to flesh out the article. If anyone has a cached version, that would be of use, and I would be grateful. Popsup ( talk) 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Wow. @ Evangp and Popsup:, those two responses together hit pretty much every one of the "keep" arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I encourage you both to read that document and the Notability content guidelines In particular, the claim: "Notability has to do with importance, not with fame" is completely wrong here. The general notability guideline provides more information. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete upon review of the two mentions in Billboard, they appear trivial. There is an article about the club, but it's on a "general club news" part of the magazine. Other sources are mentions. The blog here [1] is probably the best source, but I don't think it passes GNG on its own as there's not much else out there in terms of reliable sources. SportingFlyer talk 05:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 16 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. Fairly good consensus to keep. Arguments against were that there didn't seem to be much in depth coverage. Arguments for included asserting notability through several sources and a new set of notability crteria from WikiProject Chess. That particular set of criteria assumes GNG is met on this article, although does not have the status of SNG. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 00:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ingrid Aliaga Fernández

Ingrid Aliaga Fernández (  | 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 procedural nomination, I'm neutral on the outcome. This person meets the recently-established WP:NCHESS by having won the women's Peruvian Chess Championship. However, she never achieved the rank of Grandmaster (the older chess notability rule-of-thumb), nor do I see sufficient non-statistical references for this to pass via WP:GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - I did a pretty good search for sources. Her name comes up in crosstables, and in news blips about tournament results, but unfortunately there doesn't look to be much by way of in-depth coverage (or much coverage at all unless we just wanted to compile a list of tournaments she has played in/won). E.g. [2] [3] [4] and then coverage in articles that seem more about Deysi Cori -- not sure why she received more coverage for her win than Aliaga did? ( e.g.). Then there are a few questionable and/or primary sources, but even still there's no much to go by. To me this highlights an issue with NCHESS #2/#3 (being directly related) -- chess is played just about everywhere, and the coverage of winners of national championships doesn't reliably get a lot of in-depth reliable press coverage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Peru is not like Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands, they have several grandmasters (e.g. Julio Granda Zuniga) so winning the Peruvian Women's championship and being the number 2 rated woman player in Peru is no trivial achievement. Competing in a women's world championship should be enough to get her over the line. Also, without going too deeply into the links, I get a lot of hits when I search on "Ingrid Aliaga" (the usual shortened form of her name). Most of them are in Spanish of course but that's perfectly ok. Article can be improved of course, citing Mark Weeks is not ideal but there's no reason to believe the information is false. The English (written by a non-native speaker) obviously needs cleaning up too. I don't see how it would improve the encyclopedia to delete this and break the links from Peruvian Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship 2010 and Women's World Chess Championship 2012. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ MaxBrowne: Could you link to some of the sources you found? I also searched for Ingrid Aliaga and looked through the non-English sources and did not come up with enough. Meeting one of the criteria for chess players does not, of course, give anyone a free pass -- it's an indication of who's probably notable, not a guarantee (we still need some in depth coverage in reliable sources). I would love to switch over to keep, but we need more than just the fact that she won a title. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I found an old interview with her, she was a promising junior who got her WFM title at 13 but appears to have curtailed the chess for several years to concentrate on study. She gets a fair amount of coverage in Peruvian and other Latin American sources (e.g. fideamerica.com) and IMO playing in a Women's World Championship alone is good enough to justify notability. In general I think User:Uldis s is doing a great job of countering the systemic WP:BIAS of the English wikipedia's chess coverage by creating articles for players who have not received much attention in English language sources. There is a big Pan-American chess scene which is poorly covered on the internet in general, and on wikipedia in particular. MaxBrowne ( talk) 00:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Combination of FIDE title + multiple wins of a national championship + Olympiad appearances, constitutes good notability in my opinion. Brittle heaven ( talk) 13:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Maybe a good case study in whether/how often a WikiProject's notability guidelines can supersede WP:N/ WP:GNG (and/or whether that, combined with the non-English nature of most of the sources, provide a good enough reason to give the subject the benefit of the doubt). Arguments about titles, appearances, etc. should indicate that someone is notable in the sense of having significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They don't confer notability unless we ignore GNG. (I must have missed the discussion leading to NCHESS, and certainly don't agree with the wording "presumed notable", which NSPORTS also uses) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Discussed at WP:CHESS here and here.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh, I know. I commented in the first one, expressing that it should indicate what's notable and missing the language "presumed notable" -- I guess I just missed where it was implemented. I notice that Cobblet expressed something similar regarding relation to GNG, so I suspect this isn't actually intended to supplant the GNG and thus, again, titles, tournaments, etc. are only indicators of notability -- we still need sources when GNG is challenged. So far the best source is a brief interview published by the department of sport (not typically ideal to go to government sports agencies for neutral reporting of coverage of its own athletes). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The use of the word "presumed" comes from GNG itself. Cobblet ( talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that WP:NCHESS is not a guideline but part of a WikiProject page, and as such does not represent the wider community consensus required for it to be taken into account in this AfD's closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree. I don't understand Sandstein's objection. Does he think that no other sports notability guidelines began as WikiProject discussions?-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
A handful of people at a WikiProject cannot decide to throw out WP:GNG in favor of their own criteria when that criteria claims as notable articles which are not notable according to any actual policies/guidelines. That's part of the difference between being something a couple people added to a WikiProject page and something that has strong consensus to be a guideline. This very AfD is an example of why the criteria at WP:NCHESS would have no chance to gain such consensus. Of course, since individual AfDs depend more on who attends them, it will probably be kept nonetheless. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
No one is throwing out GNG - these criteria merely indicate that in this case, she may met GNG by winning her national championship. Of course the sources may be offline and not in English. -- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 01:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Winning a national championship is enough to establish notability.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This blog reproduces an interview with Aliaga in El Peruano, and links to a different interview of hers in Perú.21, which no longer appears to be available online. There are also interviews of her on YouTube, e.g. [5], [6]. GM Slipak commented on some of her games in his daily round reports at the 2017 Women's Continental Championship: [7], [8], [9]. We can probably find even better coverage if we dig more deeply (for instance, this says a little bit more about Aliaga than the first source currently used in the article), but I think what we've already found is sufficient to constitute significant coverage. Cobblet ( talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment in response to Sandstein: WikiProject guidelines that are accepted by the community (throught discussions like this one) generally are accepted in place of GNG, especially when people that meet those guidelines usually meet GNG as well. In this case, as the SNG was created very recently and hasn't been tested, it would be a circular argument to keep merely per the SNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:47, 17 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 Brian Sandoval. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kathleen Teipner Sandoval

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

Being the spouse of a US Governor doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and I don't see sufficient coverage about her specifically to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

How come there's an article for Anne Gust, Sharon Davis (wife of Gray Davis), and Judith Dean (wife of Howard Dean)? Similarly, there should be an article for Kathleen Tiepner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LudicrousEditor ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist". 104.163.158.37 ( talk) 06:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The page you quoted from also says "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else" as Bill Shakespeare once said - " Mark you this, Bassanio, The Devil can cite Wikipedia policy for his purpose". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:57, 18 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Prehistoric kingdom

Prehistoric kingdom (  | 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 upcoming Steam game from a non-notable publisher seems to fail WP:NSOFT as it does not have coverage from significant third-party news sources. Passengerpigeon ( talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 16 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Septrillion ( talk) 02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Roosevelt Mall

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

Lacking any significant coverage from secondary sources. Only "sources" are stores at that mall. Septrillion ( talk) 19:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 17 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Interactivo Gulf

Interactivo Gulf (  | 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:ORG - only 1 ref and that does not mention the company, I can't find any of value to add. The website http://www.interactivo-gulf.com appears to have been taken over as a spam site. Created by a single purpose account. KylieTastic ( talk) 18:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:03, 17 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) GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Anitha Pauldurai

Anitha Pauldurai (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:54, 18 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

P S Jeena

P S Jeena (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 18:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Akanksha Singh

Akanksha Singh (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:47, 18 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) GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Shiba Maggon

Shiba Maggon (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:47, 18 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) GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Appoorva Muralinath

Appoorva Muralinath (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:46, 18 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

James Mason (neo-Nazi)

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

Very few citations, google returns few independent reliable sources. Person is not likely notable enough to warrant an article. BrxBrx( talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 17:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete we wouldn't keep a person with this type of profile in a mainstream political party; I don't see a reason to have looser standards for fringe figures. If Siege magazine is notable, it should have an entry of its own; I don't feel the voluminousness of a fringe publication makes this person notable. The coverage in "The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right" (linked above) might be enough to meet GNG, but I don't think it's enough on its own, and am not convinced by any of the other sources. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:54, 17 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Andrea Lambert (writer)

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

Popose delete and salt of related titles. Article is a recreation of Andrea Lambert (previously deleted per AfD and G5). The sources are allmost all links to writing by Lambert herself. The article is probably a recreation of Andrea Lambert. See the page logs for that page here Not sure why Qolpeder has access to content created by blocked sockpuppet Evlekis, but the article may qualify for deletion under speedy criterion G5: Creations by banned or blocked users. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Lambert That AfD is so old however, that G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion does not apply. Given the creation history and the sockpuppetry I'm bringing the article to AfD for discussion. Vexations ( talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt per nom. - GretLomborg ( talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. To be fair, I'll note that as an administrator I'm able to view deleted pages, so I can confirm that this version is not a verbatim copy of the previously deleted version — it still isn't really doing a better job of properly demonstrating or sourcing her notability than the previous version did, but neither the body nor the sourcing are a straightforward copy of the prior version. But this is a virtually perfect example of what Wikipedia:Citation overkill refers to as a "notability bomb": editors trying so hard to make a person appear more notable than she really is that they'll throw every conceivable reference they can get their hands on into the mix to get the number of footnotes into the 40s or 50s, but the sources are complete garbage if anybody actually analyzes them. This is not referenced to reliable source coverage about her, but to primary sources, pieces of her own writing, event calendars, and sources which tangentially verify the existence of a literary anthology without even mentioning Lambert's existence at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you reference a writer as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As noted in Citation Overkill, "an article with just four or five really good sources is considered better referenced than an article that cites 20 or 30 weak ones." Bearcat ( talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone, only notable people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nn. Szzuk ( talk) 14:43, 23 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) 12:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

HeadKrack

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

Not seeing a lot of notability, but some very iffy sourcing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those noted above (LA Sentinel and Dallas Observer). FloridaArmy ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing in the article even tries to make a claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) for anything, and none of the sourcing shown so far is cutting it. The LA Sentinel source shown above is not independent third party coverage about him, but merely leads to a YouTube clip of him speaking about himself in a Q&A interview, so it doesn't support notability at all — people get over GNG by being the subject of coverage written by other people, not by talking about themselves or other things in Q&A interviews — and RapZilla is a blog, not a reliable source. So the only reference that isn't a complete non-starter right off the bat is the Dallas Observer — but that's a local alt-weekly, so while it would be acceptable as one source within a mix of more solid sourcing than anybody has actually been able to show, it does not bring the GNG all by itself as an article's only valid source. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better — but he needs more and better sources than this. Bearcat ( talk) 20:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
As a lead in two nationally syndicated shows he meets notability guidelines and he is noted extensively in LOTS of sources in addition to those noted above. He's a feature of Atlanta influencers and is very popular. Not even a borderline case. FloridaArmy ( talk) 21:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Lead? Are you sure about that? Dish Nation lists him as one of 7 co-hosts and the show seems to be only just about notable itself. Then here is the Rickey Smiley Morning Show which doesn't even have an article. It redirects to its actual host, who is Rickey Smiley not HeadKrack. If you can show significant coverage by reliable sources to prove notability then that could swing the whole thing towards a "keep" but that Dallas Observer reference you added, while a small step in the right direction, is nothing like significant coverage on its own as it is just one paragraph in an article that is mostly about other people. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a whole lot more than a paragraph. And Wikipedia is missing articles on lots of subjects regarding African Americans. His lead roles on very notable and long running shows as well as the media cpverage he's received make him notable. FloridaArmy ( talk) 22:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
That's more than a paragraph, yes. But it's still the only reliable source that has been shown at all, so it doesn't make him pass WP:GNG all by itself. We require a lot more than just one acceptable source before we deem a person notable, if he doesn't have any "inherent" notability claim (like being the newly elected president of a country) strong enough to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment. Bearcat ( talk) 03:58, 19 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Back to Me (Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui song)

Back to Me (Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui song) (  | 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:NSONGS. Could go back to redirection. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 20:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Not to overstate the case but the WP:NSONG criteria are as follows. The song must have been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts; has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award; or has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. And, as the text says, a song's charting "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. Emphasis added. "Play it cool / But I see through it " :-) - The Gnome ( talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:56, 16 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. Obvious promo by undeclared paid editor blocked after warning about spamming Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Moot (app)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, largely unsourced. Kleuske ( talk) 16:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Some observation -I will like to further note one thing. Whenever the page is tagged for deletion, the author will put {{ db-author}}, so that it will be seen as less serious deletion and easily refunded. This has happended twice on Moot Technologies where the page was originally created. And after some time, the author simply requested refund, it currently exist in draft Draft:Moot Technologies after such "refund". Even on this title, they tried this trick, see it, so as to scuttle this AfD and easily request "refund". The current author is either evading block placed on EmmanuelOlilo ( talk · contribs) or is coordinating things with him. The contents of all the versions are viewable through filter log and shows similitude beyond coincidence – Ammarpad ( talk) 13:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:14, 17 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Farkas Bethlen (born 1957)

Farkas Bethlen (born 1957) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable politician, mayor of a Hungarian village Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Mayors of small villages do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, he would need to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to be deemed significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places this size. But apart from his own self-published website, the only other source shown here is a family genealogy, which is not evidence of notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if a place is called a village, pretty much the mayor is never notable. There is no other even remote claim to notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:39, 19 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. Fairly strong consensus to keep, with only the nom. supporting deletion. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 00:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Tony Wood (British businessman)

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

Notability not established by article. Only appointed as Chief Executive of Meggitt in 2018 so has been in the role 4 months max and prior to that had not held CEO or Chairman roles in any other business. On that basis I would say it's too soon for an article here Uhooep ( talk) 15:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 17:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 17:40, 16 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Emily Wong (pageant)

Emily Wong (pageant) (  | 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 the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER B dash ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 15:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 15:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:50, 17 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 keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) ATZNA 07:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 10:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ian Jones (Welsh footballer)

Ian Jones (Welsh footballer) (  | 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 has been propsed for speedy deletion before, I thought it should be deleted through AfD instead. The article is rather a waste and I even tried to expand or fix the article but there is no sources at all to provide any verification on him passing WP:FOOTY or GNG. Thanks. I have now read the new sources added and I change my !vote to Keep if the article is about this player. Thanks. ATZNA 20:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 14:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ Hhhhhkohhhhh, Yes, I noticed that, I felt the article can possibly pass if any of you finds sources to provide verification, that is why I brought it to AfD. I'll have it in mind for the future for sure anyways. Thanks. ATZNA 15:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ ATZNA: Better to post to AfD or PROD after having a source. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:55, 16 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Moslem Bakhshayesh

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

Authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. none of the book is notable (at least by WP Standards).. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but I was unable to find any coverage in independent RS so fails GNG as well. For what its worth, no entry exists on Persian WP. Saqib ( talk) 14:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article is by a new editor who has made no other edits. No sources on the page. claim is that he has three books one each in 2016, 2017 and 2018. However, my search on "Moslem Bakhshayesh" produced nothing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:16, 17 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) 17:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gareth Rhodes

Gareth Rhodes (  | 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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP: POLITICIAN. reddogsix ( talk) 13:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep It does not fail WP:POLITICIAN. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable under it. He has gotten major coverage by Politico, Huffington Post, and Roll Call. Great Great Grandson ( talk) 19:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The NYT article is not about Gareth Rhodes. It is about the seven different candidates running for the same seat as Gareth Rhodes. Is there any (non-local) news coverage in which Gareth Rhodes is the subject of the article? Peacock ( talk) 13:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

::: Yes. There Is a Politico story cited in the article that is specifically about Gareth Rhodes Great Great Grandson ( talk) 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Great, now find several more articles like that. A candidate does not magically vault from "run of the mill" to "special case" just because one piece of coverage exists beyond his own district's local media — it still takes several more substantive pieces of nationalized coverage, not just one, to make a candidacy special. Bearcat ( talk) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then he has to win the election and thereby hold the seat, not just run as a candidate, to become notable as a politician. But this demonstrates no strong claim of preexisting notability, and the existence of some campaign-related coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG pass for a candidate either, because every candidate can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage. His district is in the immediate suburbs and exurbs of New York City itself, further, so the fact that one of the sources here is in The New York Times does not make his candidacy special — it just represents the expected local coverage in his local media, not evidence that his candidacy is storming the national notability ramparts — and at any rate, that source is not about him per se, but simply mentions his name in the process of being fundamentally an overview about all of the challengers vying in the Democratic primary, so it doesn't single Rhodes out as a special case over and above Antonio Delgado or Brian Flynn or Patrick Ryan or Erin Collier or David Clegg or Jeff Beals. And at any rate, NPOL #2's provision for "major local political figures" is about mayors and city councillors and county supervisors, not unelected candidates for anything. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough as of today. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete even the wording in the article itself is misleading. RHodes is not currently running against the incumbent, despite what his campaign rhetoric may imply, he is vying for the change to challenge the incumbent in the general election. However the long standing guidelines are that even major party nominees for congress and not default notable, much less people just running for the nomination. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wasabi,the,one. If not, then delete for failing to meet notability requirements as already explained well in comments above. Peacock ( talk) 13:00, 19 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! 18:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kristian Marolt

Kristian Marolt (  | 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:NSINGER and the sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. Most are very short and far from in-depth or just mention him as having been part of a non-notable boys band or covers his unsuccessful participation in Pop Idol in 2011 (axed after 2nd live) Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
His single Prava Prilika has been presented on a compilation album under the Croatia Records label, entitled Fresh Travanj, 2015. 01/03. Maybe I should add more information under the section Avanti on the article that are mentioned on Croatian language? There are still some sources that I had already mentioned, that are mainly based on his career and personal life (news like 24sata, Večernji list, Index.hr and etc.). He also was a guest on a radio called Antena Zadar (new source can be found under the references). There is an article on his high school website about him preforming a song on a Tribute to John Lennon event. He also preformed on a concert called Koncert Romana Pavliša i prijatelji. The preformance was sponsored by Radio Drava and Koprivnica.net. -- Intelinsidehp ( talk) 18:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only article produced by the search tools was a brief mention on what appears to be a music industry website from (likely) Croatia, so the search included his own part of the world. Lack of Wikipedia level notoriety = delete. Tapered ( talk) 07:25, 19 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) 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dr.R.Mahendran

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

So the subject received press coverage in The Hindu but other than this, lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Therefore the subject does not appear to meet GNG. Saqib ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- There's more coverage than the one article noted by nom from The Hindu. There are these two, also from The Hindu: [16], [17]. There's also this, which doesn't seem to be online:
  • Inter-crop model may cushion impact of vanilla price swings Economic Times, The (Mumbai, India) - September 7, 2004
Thus meets GNG. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
OK none of the coverage discuss the subject directly and in-depth. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You just made up the "in-depth" part. WP:GNG requires that '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' That means that Sig Cov has statements that are directly about the subject. It also means that the criterion is solely based on whether the RS can be used to establish facts about the subject. These can. Furthermore, as GNG reminds us, " it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Contra your misleading claim, there is no requirement that Sig Cov discuss subject in-depth and all three of these sources discuss subject in detail so that no OR is needed to extract content and the fact that the subject is not the main topic of the RS is, explicitly per GNG, irrelevant. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It's fine that you don't think the provided sources meet the criterion for establishing notability, but no one here is talking about sources to support claims within an article except for you. You said they need to be "in-depth." I quoted GNG to prove that in fact, sources to establish notability DO NOT have to be "in-depth." They have to be "in detail." It's a very different thing, and our AfD process is not well-served by you materially altering the requirements of the notability criterion in your comments. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Trivial coverage in the form of a news-stories is hardly encyclopedically notable, given it's abundance, now-a-days, and is not enough to establish the WP:N. -- Saqib ( talk) 06:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abote2 ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abote2 ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even the form of the article name shouts that this is probably a problematic promotional article. The sourcing is clearly not enough for GNG, but even if it was this article would still suffer from acting as a promotionalist platform. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to advertise their specific organic farming endevors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non notable and almost totally promotional DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 21 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. Courcelles ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Aropa Records

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Dash Berlin, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG. KingAnd God 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No indications of notability, no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP.
  • Delete: fails WP:NCORP. The label was wound up in 2014 – the only one of its 42 releases that charted anywhere was the very first one, "Man on the Run", which made no. 38 in the Netherlands. No sources found that describe the label in detail. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:36, 23 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Steve Woods (politician)

Steve Woods (politician) (  | 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 politician. Woods was a local town councilman who attempted to run for wider office on several occasions (state senate on two occasions and governor on another). In all contests, he dropped out or lost during the primary process. The coverage he received is not beyond the standard level of local coverage any candidate might expect, but as he never managed to win any of his larger races, I'd argue that he does not meet WP:NPOL. As an aside, and probably largely unrelated, the article was recently PROD'ed with the rationale that "The person listed in this article no longer wishes it to be published." That PROD was declined (by me) as an invalid reason to delete the article, but further examination of its actual content lead me to this AFD nomination. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Serving on the municipal council of a town with a population of less than 10K is not an automatic pass over WP:NPOL #2, and only one reliable source here is actually covering him in that context, which is not enough to make a smalltown municipal councillor a special case over and above most other smalltown municipal councillors. And people don't get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates, either — if a person doesn't win election to, and thereby hold, an office that passes NPOL #1, then he has to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons, and the amount of sourcing shown here for the candidacies is, once again, not nearly enough to make his candidacies somehow more notable than most other candidacies. And nominator is correct that "the subject doesn't want an article" isn't a valid reason for prod, because sometimes that has been tried by people who have a strong enough notability claim that we have to overrule their wish — but per WP:BIODEL it can be taken into account in an AFD discussion if a genuinely strong notability claim isn't really in play, and nothing here is a particularly strong notability claim. Bearcat ( talk) 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't meet NPOL per Bearcat; no claim of meeting GNG apart from the coverage of failed political campaigns. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:05, 17 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. Per anlysis of sources in discussion Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

University of Alberta Outdoors Club

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

My Google Search returned primarily sources within the University of Alberta domain, as well as a couple of social media websites. No independent coverage in reliable sources appears to exist, causing this to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 12:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • per nom - sources are almost entirely OR, social media, OR from other unis doing events with them. There is a single mention in a book I found on the history of the group, but a literal line only. No notability established. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I have added reliable independent sources from from the Peel's Prairie Provinces as well as written out part of what makes this club relevant and note-worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N64kidg ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - flickering views on my behalf, apologies. So Gateway is the (old?) student newspaper. Certainly the altered set-up is backed-up more, but with potentially unreliably source. Some of the city stuff might have alternate sources - I will have a look tomorrow. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ N64kidg and Nosebagbear: The newly added sources don't establish notability, as they fail to meet WP:NORG, which reads: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." I have seen no articles from sources outside of Edmonton. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 02:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 11:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a student union club, the refs are mostly primary with some local coverage that doesn't establish notability, nothing i can see on google that is different from that which is already in the article. Recently created by an spa. Szzuk ( talk) 15:53, 24 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 WP:CSD#A7 ( non-admin closure) Septrillion ( talk) 22:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

CleanMail Antispam

CleanMail Antispam (  | 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:NSOFT. Should really be speediable. SmartSE ( talk) 12:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:20, 17 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Chad Focus

Chad Focus (  | 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 and WP:NMUSIC, possibly with WP:TOOSOON mixed in given they debuted in 2017. The subject has as of yet produced one single which reached #47 on a chart in the US, which is far below the threshold set by Wikipedia's criteria for notable musicians. No other claims to significance are made and a search turns up few results, indicating a WP:SIGCOV (GNG) failure. In short, a musician who debuted with one single in 2017 that has not accrued the in-depth coverage required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 ( talk) 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Correct, but I remain of the mindset that a single (and relatively recent at that) album is not in itself an indication of notability. Note that NMUSIC posits that musicians may be notable if they fulfill the criteria of the guidline. And what of the seeming failure of WP:GNG?-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 03:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:N states "a topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. In this case, it has passed the subject-specific guideline and thus, merits an article without needing to pass WP:GNG as the guideline asserts that. KingAnd God 04:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now: The song Dance with Me hit the chart (week of 04-07-2018) at #47 (top 100) and climbed to #36 (week of 04-14-2018) in one week. I am NOT a fan of recentism or breaking news as we shouldn't rush to create articles ---but--- then we shouldn't rush to delete them either. I also think that any exclusion to GNG cannot over-ride the criteria and mandate concerning a WP:BLP so care should be used when a person is involve. This becomes Wikipedia problematic when an article is actually a pseudo biagraphy. In this case we have a VERY poorly written "wanna-a-be" biagraphy of a newer artist than can be fixed by edits. Notability can be established by the chart records and the Dance with Me video but the there would be concerns of violating WP:BIO1E. The artist also has the video RapXclusive (video): Get to the Money by Chad Focus and there is a Chad Focus bio (Hiphoprapscene). I think there is enough sourcing to present notability even though it really was WP:TOOSOON to create the article. The options now would be to leave as an article, userfy, or place in a draft. I would classify this a a "too soon" but let's "wait a while and see", since it is here, and I think wait and see is justified. Otr500 ( talk) 03:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 12:21, 16 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Molana Ghazanfar ali Rizvi

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

My Google Search returned primarily YouTube videos and social media, with no coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Also, this person is but the vice-president of a redlinked University, meaning he also fails WP:NACADEMICS. In a way, this is more of a promotional page/resume (he "received education from highly educated teachers" and "is also a very good poet") than an encyclopedic article. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 11:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Aye, I did try. RetroCraft314 removed it; I'm not sure if he meant to decline it or did so by accident while performing general clean-up, but you aren't supposed to nominate them for CSD again using the same criteria. So now we're here. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Compassionate727: Looking over revision history, it appears that I did. Was definitely an accident, my apologies. I'll try and be more careful :) < RetroCraft314 talk/> 02:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dirty subsidy

Dirty subsidy (  | 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 came across this after I nominated Dirty Subsidy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy. My reasons are the same. The term "dirty subsidy" seems to original research, ie this is basically an essay using sources that don't use the term. It's interesting but we shouldn't be creating neologisms. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 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. Rough consensus to keep, this looks like a HEY with foreign sources coming to light. No point relisting, as it's likely to SNOW. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 00:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Andrijana Janevska

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

Not a notable musician. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. KingAnd God 10:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 11:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:08, 17 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 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dark Winter (Fateweaver Series)

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

Self-published book of non notable author – Ammarpad ( talk) 10:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:25, 16 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 the absence of any sources that verify any of the claims to notability. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bauxite Junction, Arkansas

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

GNIS claims that this is a "populated place". Every real reference to this says that it is the "station" where the Bauxite and Northern Railway meets the Union Pacific. Are railroad junctions and other such spots-on-the-rails notable in their own rights? If so, I can fill up a lot of pages with them. Anyway, there's no town or house or anything here except rails and trees, and what appears to be a alumina processing plant to the south. Mangoe ( talk) 10:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
There's no station building there, nor have passenger trains likely ever stopped there. "Station" in this case means "named spot on the line" which, a hundred years ago, would have needed someone to operate switches/signals. Mangoe ( talk) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Except its not just a "spot on the line. "The Aluminum Company of America and the Reynolds Metals Company use large volumes of crushed stone as a fluxing agent in refining crude ore in the production of aluminum at Bauxite Junction, Arkansas". It's been a busy junction and a rail yard was built at the site and it's discussed substantially in many reliable independent sources. "The carrier connects with the Missouri Pacific Railroad (MP) at the Bauxite Junction Yard. The yard is located on the MP's Arkansas Division, 18 miles south of Little Rock, Arkansas. The yard is situated on the south side, parallel to the MP's double main track, and is jointly operated by the two carriers. It consists of eight east/west tracks, connected at both ends. The track grade in the yard descends from west to east at a rate of 0.55 percent. Cars are interchanged by MP train crews at ...". It's been involved in district court cases and in fatalities. FloridaArmy ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If you could be bothered to reference this properly and make a claim of notability in the article, it would probably not even have been nominated for deletion. As it stands, I'm not going to vote keep. Deb ( talk) 08:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It's miles from Bauxite and is home to a rail junction. FloridaArmy ( talk) 00:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not every rail junction is notable. We lack an article on Utica Junction, Michigan, which was the railway stop to go to Utica, Michigan, about 10 miles from Utica by Utica Road. The area was not just a railway station, but an inhabited area, although it has since been incorpaorated into Roseville, Michigan, an article which does not adequately cover the unique and historic character of Utica Junction t present either. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment I am open to turning this into a redirect to the short line involved and editing that article accordingly (there's pretty much nothing in the current article that's usable). I really cannot see how the spot is independently notable, however. Mangoe ( talk) 18:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Good idea. FloridaArmy ( talk) 19:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by proposer. — CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

James Holloway (historian)

James Holloway (historian) (  | 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 have concern about past versions (I would reload the third version or current version if people agree that it should be deleted and if people think that is right.). My main concern is that the info in education and personal life (may breach privacy, particularly the bit about owning a ducatti that was on the fourth page I published, I think that the third page combined with the better referencing of Derek R Bullamore would be better) is not needed on a biographical page and is based on only one article. Please advise me because I am not an experienced editor and am unsure of the correct procedure. Rig15 ( talk) 09:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep deletion discussions are not generally for editing issues. Details about his motorcycle can be addressed by normal editing, talk page discussion and perhaps the BLP noticeboard. FloridaArmy ( talk) 12:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't understand your concerns but you can request oversight of content if it violate personal privacy. Saying what kind of motorcycle he owns is an issue? FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It seems a bit of breach of privacy to me in hindsight. How could I get an oversight revision deletion for the fourth revision that I made. Rig15 ( talk) 14:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree with you that editing the revision is the appropriate thing to do, therefore I will delete the proposed deletion of the page Rig15 ( talk) 15:09, 16 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dr Anurag Agarwal

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

Speedy declined. Issues with notability. Beyond a couple minor local news awards there's not much coverage in reliable secondary sources. I'm sure the fellow is an excellent surgeon but I'm just not seeing what makes him stand apart. œ ™ 10:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

please go through the links and you will see that he is notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorsre ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 06:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Tai Abbett

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

Not notable. "Creative evangelist of Google" is a largely meaningless title that is likely puffed-up by the subject; I don't see any independent references that use it or suggest it has any importance. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 09:48, 16 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Electron liquid

Electron liquid (  | 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 is not clear. The terms like jellium, Thomas-Fermi, free electron model and Fermi liquid have already existing articles. Most of the content in the article is covered in Jellium and seems like a rephrasing. Additionally, no sources. MaoGo ( talk) 09:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment A quick survey does not convince me that this and jellium are the same thing, and I have a certain mistrust of both articles as a result. It's perfectly clear that people publish plenty on on electron liquid behavior. Possibly someone knowledgeable could WP:TNT this and start over. Mangoe ( talk) 12:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
We could wait for someone more involved with this kind of terms. For what I've seen, papers refer to EL to discuss a gas with interactions, which usually leads to jellium or Fermi liquid theory (or some other specific model). What I meant in the lead is that Jellium article seems to discuss the same things as the current EL article. -- MaoGo ( talk) 12:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Looking at the GScholar hits, I'm questioning whether the jellium article should be where this is discussed. If you search for both terms, you only get about 750 hits, but "jellium" separately produces some 22k hits, and these seem to be specifically about metals, whereas "electron liquid" produces around 11k hits, and those seem to be about electrons in semiconductors as well as in metals. At any rate they seem to be related but distinct ideas. Mangoe ( talk) 16:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure. But the current article is not clear about the topic and its definition. If someone knows a clear distinction I'm also ok with the TNT. -- MaoGo ( talk) 11:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Jellium is a pretty standard term. Take for example the Marder, Condensed Matter: [32]. -- MaoGo ( talk) 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 18:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Edith Nakalema

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

Not seeing anything to make this person notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER and the rest reads like a normal career army officer Gbawden ( talk) 09:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: She has been commented on in several secondary sources which is usual for a women from the Ugandan military.-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Delete. No notability whatsoever. Just someone doing her job. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp: - your bolded !vote here doesn't quite match the rationale. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Whoops! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Keep. Reconsidering. Despite her relatively lowly rank, she does seem to have been a significant and influential figure in the Ugandan government. Not really emphasised in the article itself (which just presents her as a mid-ranking officer without much notability), but I admit that the media coverage does suggest a different story. In all fairness, I suspect a figure in Britain or America with this profile would be kept. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    The claim to notability, such as it is, is due to her being the Personal Assistant to the President between Nov 2016 [33] and June 2017 [34] - and that should probably be made clearer in the article as well. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A major doesn't pass SOLDIER. President’s Private Secretary doesn't pass NPOL. And she doesn't have anything close to SIGCOV - some coverage mentioning her in her previous political role, some coverage of her being sent to the course in the UK - but not at a level approaching SIGCOV. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. @ Necrothesp and @ Icewhiz - Please consider GNG. ATZNA 15:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    I have - saying it failed WP:SIGCOV (another way of saying GNG). In straight up google the name has less than 160 hits (and many aren't about this subject, or aren't RSes in any way shape or form, etc.). In google-news (usually a good metric for the notability of contemporary political/military figures) - we have only 8 hits (and many of them are far from in depth). This is in-depth (on losing her personal secretary position and being sent to training in the UK), this one is mostly low-quality coverage of an event she was help run in the UK on Ugandan culture, this is about the marriage of her brother, in this she gets instructions to do something (mentioned in 2 paragraphs), this one also has brief mentions, this is beyond a paywall but doesn't seem to be about her, brief mentions here, and here we have a one-liner on her appointment as Personal Assistant to the President in Nov 2016 (so basically - she held this job with some power (before being removed to the UK) - for about a year)). I personally apply a bias to African subjects - requiring less coverage than say Westerners - as there are fewer news outlets spitting out news in English out to the web - however this level of coverage (one in-depth piece) - would not pass SIGCOV (or GNG). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm basing this on the fact that her career moves are evidently followed closely in the Ugandan press.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Nakalema is covered adequately (a) here, (b) here and (c) here. Fsmatovu 23:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - She wasn't the president's private secretary. She was the head of the Private Office and Household of the President, an position which carries the title of secretary. To me, the position seems on the order of a Deputy Chief of Staff for the US president. In anycase, the article passes V, NPOV, and NOR, and the subject seems encyclopedic. Smmurphy( Talk) 14:47, 19 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

HogSozzle Music Festival

HogSozzle Music Festival (  | 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 significant coverage in third party reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Contested WP:PROD Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 08:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those cited in the article. FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a small nn festival, one of the refs has pictures of the festival, there's hardly anyone there. Szzuk ( talk) 16:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NEVENTS. There are dozens and dozens of festivals that take place between May and September every year up and down the UK, and most of them are not notable, like this one. The festival started out as literally a barbecue in someone's back garden, and eight years later it isn't much bigger – the site's capacity is 700 people (half the size of the average indoor music venue), which makes it smaller both in terms of size and in notability of the headline acts than the other two festivals which take place on the same site, Wilkestock and Back of Beyond... and those festivals aren't notable either. The one reliable source in the article, from the Hertfordshire Life, is archived here: [35] – but this is a local magazine, and it just lists 50 events taking place within Hertfordshire during the summer of 2013, which must be just about every event in the county that summer, so it doesn't mark this festival out as notable. The other sources are two blogs, and the website of another event that takes place on the same site. All sources online appear to be either event listings or ticket websites. Article was created by a SPA, Team Ridiculous, which just happens to be the name of the organisational team behind the festival – I strongly suspect the team created the article as promotional material for the 2014 event, and have never bothered to update it since then. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as lacking independent in depth sourcing. Oops I did it again ( talk) 22:37, 23 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. Basing this on the refutation of the sources and giving preference to established voters Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Khalil Al Qaheri

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

so basically an entrepreneur and founder of some non-notable entities but fails to meet basic GNG. I could not locate even trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. most of the cited sources are in Arabic and appears not solid sources. Saqib ( talk) 08:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 08:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 08:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I just listed a part of sources to checking out. Elina ( talk) 12:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Elina is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply

  • I'm afraid some of the provided references are not independent RS and literary none of the several reference discusses the subject directly and in-detail thus fails GNG. -- Saqib ( talk) 13:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: sources directly are talking about subject of article and the companies which he is founder or ceo of them. i believe that you can′t find more relible website in Bahrain than this website http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/617766 in Bahrain. as I checked other Arab businessman′s articles, usually they use several sources in Arabic and they are founder or ceo of a company. aslo I provided reliable sources in english and Arabic. many news have been published about him in Arabic in reliable News websites, due to the company which he has founded, is the first company in Bahrain in its career. most of sources are talking about him directly and couple of them are talking about the companies which he is serving in them. the title of some of news are his name, you can reed and get they are talking about subject of article directly. these can prove his notability as well as other businessmans or entrepreneur. also I founded several others sources that I think we dont need to add them because current sources are enough. my native language is Arabic and Ive checked Arabic sources and Arabic article which has published on Arabic wikipedia about this person. this article meet GNG as a businessman or entrepreneur. regards. Elina ( talk) 18:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
And where are those sources which discusses the subject directly and in-detail? I'm afraid one cannot establish the notability by merely saying that subject meets GNG. -- Saqib ( talk) 06:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: when you ask a question on wikipedia, if you are not writing on his talk page, you should ping him by using Template:Reply to, by this way he will recieve your message and will reply you. due to you didnt ping me I didnt recieve your message,although this page is on my watchlist, i dont check my watchlist everyday, also you havnt ping following person who has voted about article. AS I know as a Arab person, the Arabic links which I listed for you, has published on the most reiable and famous News paper in Arab world and they dont publish fake News. the sources which has used on Arabic Wikipedia for same person are several of sources which i listed you and Arrabic wikipedia didnt say that the News are not talking directly even their native language is Arabic, so how you fuss the Arabic sources and telling their not reliable?! if they are not reliable so why Arabic wikipedia has accepted article which are very intransigent against biography of Arab people?! as me and you know the sources should not be only in english they can be on each language. im telling you for third times this link http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/617766 is published on the most reliable news agancy in Bahrain which always publish important news, and is directily talking about the subject and companies. about following person, i searched Ebdaa Hub on google and I saw several News about it which is talking that this company is the first company in Bahrain on its career. if you cant see, change your browser or device which you are searching by it. Elina ( talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Katio33: You seems to misunderstanding my point. I repeat, the subject has not received significant coverage but merely some mentions which is namechecking and not enough to establish the WP:N. -- Saqib ( talk) 04:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: you have told me the sources are not talking about subject directly and i replied that to you. also you have asked about Ebdaa Hub from following person and didnt ping him to reply you so I replied you. about this new point which you wrote recently, please explaine mor which is the problem exactly? sources or cotext? yo improve it. Elina ( talk) 07:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well i think you dont seems to understand my points so I'm done. Let's leave it upto the closing admin to decide. -- Saqib ( talk) 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
How's Ebdaa Hub a notable company. Google search does not produce any coverage about the organisation in independent RS. Anyways, we're not talking about company but the personality. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
since you havnt ping this person so he wont reply you. so I gonna reply you. if you search Ebdaa Hub on google you will find several news about that about being first company in Bahrain in its career. as I found and as this person found. Elina ( talk) 07:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them. The onos in on you to establish the WP:N. -- Saqib ( talk) 07:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
these sources are About Ebdaa Hub * http://www.newsofbahrain.com/viewNews.php?ppId=42283
* http://startupbahrain.com/newsfeatures/first-batch-bahraini-entrepreneurs-graduate-entrepreneurship-camp/
http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/835354
* http://www.gdnonline.com/Details/346401/Business-Clinic-to-back-1,000-Bahraini-SMEs
* http://www.alayam.com/alayam/economic/721261/News.html
* http://alwatannews.net/article/760824/Business/%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8-27-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A8-%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84-%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AA%D8%A3%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84
* https://www.zawya.com/mena/ar/story/%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A9_%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85_%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B3_%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84_%D9%88%D8%A5%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B2_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B7%D8%A9_-ZAWYA20171019072741/
* http://www.albiladpress.com/news/2018/3464/finance/490377.html
these websites are used on Arabic wikipedia as reliable sources that you said most of the cited sources are in Arabic and appears not solid sources.these are only about Ebdaa Hub . other sources are exist which are about other companies that subject is Ceo of them. Elina ( talk) 09:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep found some reliable references [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] on google. number of valid sources and mentions in the press on the article lead me to believe that the subject meet notability requirements. this biography also was published in Persian Wikipedia ( [44]) as a notable Bahrain businessman and Arabic Wikipedia that was written in more details about subject(its main language of subject). in number of Arabic presses only was written what he said, because of as we read in the article : Al Qaheri is better known for his Entrepreneurship publications on the principles of Bahrain′s mass medias. these sources are his Entrepreneurship articles on Arabic press. Kamran Ali El-Batli ( talk) 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Kamran Ali El-Batli: We have discussed it above that the provided references does not establish the WP:N. I can see the bio exists on Arabic and Persian WP's but the WP:N standards and requirement are slightly different there so having said that, we cannot guarantee a bio on English WP on the basis that the bio exists on other WPs. -- Saqib ( talk) 05:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: it was just my idea about this article, it can be correct or Fals. Kamran Ali El-Batli ( talk) 09:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Another comment by an editor who has made (as of this moment [45]) few other edits outside of AfD. This is relevant given the various suspected sock accounts active at this AfD.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 23:04, 23 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 David E. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jean-Pierre Giroud

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

Sourced only by a wiki entry and a self-penned biographical note - repeating some of the note's peacock descriptions. The article's author has stated "the only reliable source about the article can be obtained by his own page" - obviously not notable. Cabayi ( talk) 08:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Top cites on Google scholar for JP-Giroud (after filtering out the medical ones with a similar author name) are 396, 238, 204, 190, 174, 142, 139, 136, 121, 118, ... with 10 papers having over 100 cites and an h-index of 31. That's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, even if his awards are too low-level for notability that way. And membership in the US National Academy of Engineering (for which I just added a source independent of the subject) is a clear pass of #C3. This article is indeed a mess but that's not an issue for AfD. And the nomination statement about what the author has said about sourcing is also not particularly relevant; it comes across more as one editor's misunderstanding how Wikipedia works than as proof that proper sources are unavailable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:PROF as explained above, but certainly not per WP:ANYBIO. There are over 70 thousand chevaliers in the Légion d'Honneur, and most are not notable. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:43, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Regina Bateson

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this does not make any claim of preexisting notability at all -- all of the content outside of her campaign-related coverage itself is referenced to primary sources, not to any evidence that she was getting media coverage for any of it at the time. And the campaign-related coverage itself does not make a candidate notable just for being a candidate, either — it just makes her a WP:BLP1E, and because every candidate in every election always gets some campaign-related coverage, the existence of that coverage does not automatically get a candidate over WP:GNG all by itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat -- but nothing stated or sourced here entitles her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Tony Nogales ( talk) 06:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'd request in future that the nominator actually write his own nomination statement, instead of copying and pasting one of mine verbatim from another discussion about somebody else — it's not so much that I'm offended at all, as that it can create the appearance that you didn't really evaluate the situation very carefully, but just "templated" your way through a situation that looked equivalent on the surface. But at any rate, it is true that people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — and as of today she isn't even that yet, but is merely a candidate in a primary that hasn't happened yet, which is even less of a basis for notability. But this doesn't demonstrate any strong evidence that she had preexisting notability for other reasons, as her academic career is referenced entirely to primary sources (press releases from the universities she's been affiliated with and one of her own Twitter tweets), not to the reliable source coverage it would take to make her notable for that — and the volume of campaign-specific coverage shown here is not enough to make her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy, either. Bearcat ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As an academic that has been published several times, which have received prestigious awards in her discipline I would suggest keeping this page to reflect her academic accomplishments. These awards are considered prestigious in her disciplines. True that publishing alone is not sufficient enough for notability standards, but the accolades those publications should elevate her. Perhaps strip any references to her public service career. But anything referencing her political campaign should be removed. Criteria in WP:PROF states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." She meets at least one condition, condition "2", with two of the highest awards given from the premier journal communities in her disciplines. If these awards do not fully fulfill condition "2" (for their national or international qualifiers) then that is a different story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6BA0:D240:304B:5E63:8DAC:ABF9 ( talk) 00:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN. She has left academia without sufficient publication record to make her notable as a scholar, has, as yet, no achievements as a politician, and does not appear to have attracted SIGCOV for any other reason. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. One well-cited review paper is a good sign for the future of her academic career, but is not enough by itself for WP:PROF#C1. A dissertation award and a best-paper award are also not enough for #C2; we need something that recognizes her accomplishments more broadly and isn't based only on student work. Her work in the foreign service and her run for congress are not enough for WP:POLITICIAN. And a Q&A in a small local paper (the only source published independently of her and her employers that our article lists) or other routine newspaper coverage of her campaign [46] [47] [48] is not enough for WP:GNG. We can certainly revisit this case if her political campaign succeeds or she moves forward in her academic career, but for now a lot of things that don't individually add up to notability means no notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete an IP editor has removed all mention of her Congressional candidacy, which arguably makes this worse per notability; WP:NPROF clearly isn't met, and the remaining refs aren't independent (largely being press releases of schools she is affiliated with). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 21:57, 18 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Trans intersex

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

Zero WP:Reliable sources for this topic under this term. Violates WP:Notability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:NEO. Editor clearly copied and pasted the format of the leads of the Trans woman and Trans man articles and applied it to this article. This topic is sufficiently covered in the Intersex, Transgender and Sex assignment articles. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:24, 17 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 creation by a blocked or banned user - Beltwrestling-786 blocked in 2016 for spam/promotion, including a previous version of this article. kelapstick( bainuu) 17:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Khalil Ahmed Khan

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

Some promotional BLP which contain a lot of OR. Subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib ( talk) 04:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:49, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Soldierathon

Soldierathon (  | 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 event notability guidelines, for being unable to sustain long-standing coverage in reliable sources.

Typical paid-for-promotion in Indian media circles (coverage in Business Standard, a known culprit).Also, in light of the fact that Hindustan Times is a co-sponsor of the marathon, sadly (but rather predictably), coverage about the event deriving from HTimes has to be discarded lack of intellectual independency.

Barring a Tribune piece covering the winner of the marathon in 2 paragraphs and a TOI piece covering the event in the trivialest of manners, (as mentioning a local event in a city), I fail to spot anything else.

I would also note that the article-creator does not seem to have a very good idea about one of our most sacrosanct policies.

Anyways, nothing more significant than the marathons happening in every other corner of India with a host of big names. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades Godric 06:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This single event received some routine press coverage (obviously) but clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:EVENT. Both the duration and depth of press coverage was limited. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. So Hindustan Times was the organizer therefore we should even consider their coverage because of the COI issues. I found atleast first 3 references as not even RS. @ Devopam: I would suggest you to assume good faith and don't get offended if someone nominate your creation for deletion. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ben-Jacob's bacteria

Ben-Jacob's bacteria (  | 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 term appears to be used in almost no sources, suggesting the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. Appears to largely be promotion of the Ben-Jacobs lab. Useful info in this article on P. dendritiformis and P. vortex is already also at those articles. Term is only currently used in WP mirrors and in a smithsonian mag article (which is using the phrase as a regular possessive phrase, not as a term for these two species). Not used in any papers, suggesting if the term was ever used, it didn't catch on. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. The strains and their behaviour are clearly notable, but as such they have perfectly fine articles at Paenibacillus dendritiformis and Paenibacillus vortex, and these and Eshel Ben-Jacob are well connected in text and links. I don't see any need for merging to the latter, as has been suggested. This is not a bad article but it is simply surplus to requirements. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Weak delete I was expecting to recommend retention when I started reading this one, but I fear this is a WP:Neologism, as there's nothing on Google, GBooks or Google scholar to suggest anything other than an informal grouping of two bacterium taxa. No application of the phrase "Ben-Jacob's bacteria" in search results, suggesting this is not a term in actual use, just a use of the possessive. I was concerned this article's title was the only way in to finding Eshel Ben-Jacob, so I've now created Ben-Jacob as a redirect. I agree with Elmidae that this seems a reasonable article, but just doesn't serve a purpose as the topic is covered in both bacterium articles. I've considered a redirect, but that would suggest the term is in genuine use. I'm slightly concerned that there has been a merge suggested by Northamerica1000 since February to the eponymous biologist, to which noone has responded, yet now we are at a deletion discussion, though I can't see what content would be merged there. And the other bacterium articles are well referenced, but some merging of minor content or sources might be appropriate to each. Nick Moyes ( talk) 15:07, 17 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 Battle of Kars (1745). Consensus seems to be that while it did exist, there isn't much out there to build an article off of, which poses problems for core content policies such as WP:V. Anything verifiable can be merged to the other article. If sufficient sourcing can be found to justify an article on its own, I don't see a consensus here opposing that. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Battle of Mosul (1745)

Battle of Mosul (1745) (  | 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 mentions a battle at Mosul in 1745. Sykes source mentions a siege in 1743(p.268, 3rd edition), but nothing else concerning Mosul. Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No idea. Per Sykes(p.268-269) it mentions the battle of Kars(1745), but no mention of Mosul. Then Sykes talks about The Pioneer Journeys of Elton, 1739-1742. There is no mention of a battle/siege at Mosul in A Global Chronology of Conflict, Vol 2, page 743, which covers the battle of Kars. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 7, page 309, mentions the siege of Mosul in 1743, but no mention of any conflict in 1745. And, Lockhart, Laurence. Nadir Shah: A critical study based mainly upon contemporary sources, used for that mention of "debacle of Mosul", is non-viewable on google books. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Keep Lockhart, Laurence, Nadir Shah: A Critical Study Based Mainly Upon Contemporary Sources (1938) p. 250 ( snippet view) does describe "a striking success [Nadir]'s son Nasrullah had gained over the Turks near Mosul" which a snippet from the index on p. 340 refers to as "victory over the Turks near Mosul in 1745". Some support for some kind of engagement near Mosul in 1745 involving Nasrullah but not for the detail in the article without more. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Another brief mention of Nadir's son having "inflicted a serious defeat on an army of Ottomans and Kurds near Mosul". Axworthy, Michael, Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant (2010) pp. 289-290. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 17:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Another very brief account contains the name of the Turkish commander: "[Nadir's] son meanwhile had gained a complete victory over Abdulla Pasha near Mosul...." Herbert John Maynard, Nadir Shah (1885) p. 49.. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 15:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC) I am coming to the conclusion that all of these accounts derive from Marvi Yazdi, Mohammad Kazem, Alam Ara-ye Naderi (3 vols.) (AAN) ed. Mohammad Amin Riyahi, Tehran (Third edition) 1374/1995, which is cited in the article. I am assuming that this in Persian and have no access to it any event, so it comes down to deciding whether the three brief accounts above are enough to satisfy that this article is no hoax and then relying on WP:AGF, WP:NONENGLISH and WP:SOURCEACCESS to keep the article, which is where I am leaning. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. I'm satisfied this happened (per sources presented by 24.151.116.12 and what I see) - that the son of Nader Shah is reported to have won a victory next to Mosul while the Battle of Kars was ongoing. I am concerned in that the sources we have online in English are fairly short (mainly mentioning that this happened - but not going into the details of the battle) - however I suspect there would be non-English sources here. A merge to Battle of Kars, may also be a viable result. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Batlle of Kars. There does not seem to be enough information to regard it as as sufficiently important incident to call it a battle in a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 18 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. Killiondude ( talk) 05:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Joshua Cox

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actor -- TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 04:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Social IQ score of bacteria

Social IQ score of bacteria (  | 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 page appears to just restate what's in a single scientist's paper. All other references are tangential to the page topic. Searching on GScholar shows this term doesn't seem to have been adopted outside the Ben-Jacob lab. Topic is mentioned in some press releases from scientist's home university, but doesn't meet WP:GNG (not covered in independent sources). Ajpolino ( talk) 04:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge to Eshel Ben-Jacob#Bacterial decision-making. Some good material but not enough secondary coverage for a standalone article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not even mergable, just an individual's attempt to put a cute spin. The cuteness is obvious fdrom the contsnts of the article, which talk about bacteria as if they were conscious and make comparisons with humans. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 20 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Edible Book Festival

Edible Book Festival (  | 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'm not convinced this is anything other than a series of unrelated April Fools jokes. The "Books2Eat.com" website is defunct, but [49] contains some of the content. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC): reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric 03:42, 16 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. Arguments to keep based on assertions carry less weight than analysis of sources. We don't seem to have sources here so have a GNG fail. Tbis means the policy based votes are the delete ones. Note that I was sorely tempted to issue blocks for disrupting the afd with racism allegations. Dial it dkwn please if you want your opinion heard. Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Zainab Ali Nielsen

Zainab Ali Nielsen (  | 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 can't find any significant coverage pre-dating her recent and tragic death. No claim of meeting WP:NMUSIC. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Searching online for info aside from her death brings up practically nothing, so the subject fails WP:ARTIST. Perhaps an article titled "Death/Murder of Zainab Ali Nielsen" is in Wikipedia's future. But, as of yet, we have nothing that establishes independent notability. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with previous comments and am against the deletion. First, Google is not the only source of information, even though I did find news articles that predate her death. Second, online media coverage for African artists is quite limited in Africa and even more elsewhere. In light of this, I doubt that someone can prejudge her notability without looking for diverse sources. -- Maxxies ( talk) 02:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You're right about Google. So, I tried AltaVista and Bing, too, with the same results - meaning: no results. I then tried Aliweb and they said they'll get back to me. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Amended The google search does yield 3 pages of articles about her tragic murder. After that, the articles are not about her. Ergo, no support for her notability. Verdict is still "delete." Tapered ( talk)
Comment I found articles about her from before the murder. Ross-c ( talk) 10:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Do you happen to have sources yourself that do not come up in Google searches? If you do, post them up! If you don't, then your argument is null and void, because, if accepted, it could be used in any case where we have no online sources. - The Gnome ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh, you imagine that Google is everything, you forget Google is trapped in a US-centered matrix of its own making. [54], [55], [56]. So you can take your filthy WP:Systemic bias nomination and withdraw it. Because this article will not be deleted. Abductive ( reasoning) 00:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you should improve your attitude. Start by with assuming good faith from your fellow contributors. Then, learn to be more civil. Next, you could be less arrogant about AfD outcomes. No one knows if this article, of any article, will end up staying up or deleted through the AfD process.
As to that essay about " systemic bias" in Wikipedia, to which you linked, I simply do not agree with its (quite broad) assertions. Wikipedia comes in many languages. And notability differs across different cultures; otherwise we would not have different cultures! This is why we have, for example, artists in Arab Wikipedia or politicians in Russian Wikipedia who are not featured in English Wikipedia, and vice versa. In sum, drop the attitude and try to defend the subject's notability per WP:ARTIST or WP:NMUSIC. So far, and even after your contribution, it's not doing too well. Wikipedia gone done the tighten up, baby. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
No, I will defend the article on the basis of the WP:GNG. Don't try to frame the debate in a WP:battleground attempt to win. Abductive ( reasoning) 06:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, Abductive, I'm not "attacking" anything or anyone, so your use of words such as "defending", "win", etc, is indicative of your approach to this AfD; not mine. Contrary to what the relevant Wikipedia rule dictates about our behavior in an AfD discussion, you are engaging in personal attacks and boorish behavior. Yet, no one here is your enemy. There is no "battleground" here. We don't have "agendas." So, shape up, calm down, and behave. That's the best advice I can offer. Take it.
Back to the substance: You claimed you see "systemic bias" in this discussion. We cannot find sources outside Google and this proves "systemic bias" on our part, supposedly. I responded above that there are bound to be differences between Wikipedia's of different languages. Got any response? Do you deny this? Do you believe that, for example, Claude François is as well known (notable) in France as he is in Nigeria? I hope not. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric 03:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Whatever a 'custom date range on Google' is, none of those is a reliable source. Two appear to be promotional websites, and the ostensible newspaper has long since ceased to be a substantial reliable source. Tapered ( talk) 01:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Because systemic racism unconscious bias (on the part of Google - I would never accuse a fellow user of systemic racism - note what I am leaving out). For clarification, what I am saying is, every internet site in the third world has a certain breathless, "promotional" sound to it. That doesn't make it unreliable. For example, do you doubt she was signed to a Japanese record label? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Getting signed by a Japanese record label is proof of notability? Under which specific Wikipedia rule, please?
By the way, you already accused a "fellow user" of racism, but you forget what you write, perhaps. You wrote, you can take your filthy WP:Systemic bias nomination and withdraw it. Now, you write "systemic racism", then strike it, and write instead "unconscious bias", which you assign to Google. But Google cannot be unconsciously guilty of something! They are deliberate and thorough in their plans and operations. You seem confused; better abandon slurs and personal attacks altogether and focus on the discussion proper. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Promotional is promotional in Tierra del Fuego. The newspaper in question was once a reliable source, as are some other Lagos papers. Its Wikipedia article (well sourced) traces its decline. Tapered ( talk) 05:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Ross-c, if you cannot see on your own that the texts in all these links are pure, unadulterated promotion, no one can convince you they are. So I won't try. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
An article titled Murder of Zainab Ali Nielsen could/should probably exist in the near future. But, aside from the murder, this is, on its own, a non-notable subject, according to Wikipedia rules. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I would have no objection to moving the article to that title. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not basing my keep recommendation on the content of the news articles. Just that she has received coverage in notable national publications, and therefore meets WP:GNG. I feel that this discussion has been adversely affected by people who seem to be emotionally invested in the outcome and aren't viewing the decision objectively. Ross-c ( talk) 09:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, aside from the substance of your argument, which may be right or may be wrong, it was evident that the discussion would heat up as soon as slurs like "filthy" "racism" (: "systemic bias") surfaced here as "arguments." Let's hope it all simmers down. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I didn't use any such terms, nor have I raised issues of linguistic and national inequality within Wikipedia in this discussion. Hence, I don't know why you are raising this with me. I'm concerned that you see this as a battle that you wish to win, rather than an objective discussion concerning whether the article should stay or be deleted. Ross-c ( talk) 12:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm referring to the hideous commentary by Abductive, as above. I witnessed no inflammatory or emotionally involved attitude from your part at all. (My comment about the promotional nature of the texts you consider as valid sources is a simple disagreements of opinion. Abductive, essentially, accused all who believe the article should be deleted as racists.) - The Gnome ( talk) 12:18, 17 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rob Cryston

Rob Cryston (  | 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. The awards / categories listed, such as List of gay pornography_awards#Gay_Erotic_Video_Awards, are not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:44, 16 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. Created by a blocked user evading their block Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

837 AM (Cauayan)

837 AM (Cauayan) (  | 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 WP:CRYSTAL, radio station does not exist quite yet. Either way, definitely doesn't meet WP:NRADIO or WP:GNG for that matter. < RetroCraft314 talk/> 03:06, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Cristina Bella

Cristina Bella (  | 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 PR 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 category listed "Nifta Award winner – Best European Starlet" is not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:43, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Open-source learning

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

Advert for Preston and his brand. Orange Mike | Talk 02:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I suggest retaining the entry but using the new text now in place: Following Wikipedia guidelines (which I should have known when I wrote the original article five years ago), I have posted a completely revised entry and references about Open Source Learning, focusing entirely on the specifics of the methodology. This new entry summarizes educational practices in the United States and England in teaching a variety of subjects, and for several age groups, that make Open-Source Learning (or the same methods with other names) notable for their use in the conventional classroom as well as in lifelong learning programs. Hlebo Hlebo ( talk) 05:02, 19 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! 18:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Run the World

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

Never charted so fails WP:NSONGS. Fails WP:GNG too as all sources in the article apart from one are album reviews ( coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability) or WP:primary. The best source is this which consists of a single sentence and a audio clip of the song. AIRcorn  (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) AIRcorn  (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment only. Firstly a reading of WP:NSONGS will confirm that it is not only charting songs that are notable. Otherwise we'd have to delete all National Anthems and School songs. I felt that an article that had made it to GA should not be turned into a redirect because one editor decided it was the right thing to do, but should come for a community decision. That is why I reverted. I am happy for the community to decide, so I am not commenting on the success or failure of the nomination although I'd like to see other people comment. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Sure, that is why I followed it with fails GNG too. I won't argue the redirect again, but it should be noted here that being a Good Article does not confer any special advantages to an article. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Nobody has claimed it should have special status because it was a Good Article, only that a community decision should be reappraised by another community decision. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the refs in the article aren't up to much and there was also a DRV after the first AfD which closed endorse keep, I can't find much on google but I'm still reluctant to vote delete. Szzuk ( talk) 11:12, 24 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 Tom Collins. Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Juan Collins

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

Just a recipe ( WP:NOT), no evidence of notability. Could be merged/redirected to Tom Collins. There being many websites that provide cocktail recipes does not count as substantial coverage toward notability. Reywas92 Talk 17:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:37, 16 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. After two weeks, all we have is a bunch of squabbling, and no real discussion of the merits of the list. Relisting it for another weeks seem pointless. If people want to redirect this, discuss that on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Lists of Tamil-language media in Malaysia

Lists of Tamil-language media in Malaysia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clearly WP:Listcruft and moreover this is not exactly Lists but a directory. Saqib ( talk) 08:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
With respect I not making any personal attack on you other to point out that you have been suspected of socking. Concerning this list, WP is an encyclopedia and therefore I think this list doesn't belong anywhere here. I'm afraid if we're going to keep such lists then a vast number of things can be turned into lists. What would be next ? Lists of Tamil-language media in Thailand, Lists of Tamil-language media in Singapore, Lists of Tamil-language media in Vietnam.. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I suspect you of socking. Please don't take it personally. Note to humorless admins: This is a JOKE. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If it make sense, we can merge and Redirect this to List of television stations in Malaysia, since this list mentions only TV stations. What do you say? -- Saqib ( talk) 11:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:34, 16 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. After two weeks, all we have is a bunch of squabbling, and no real discussion of the merits of the list. Relisting it for another weeks seem pointless. If people want to redirect this, discuss that on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Lists of Tamil-language media

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

Listcruft.. i don't see any good reason why such a list is worthwhile. Saqib ( talk) 08:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
With respect I not making any personal attack on you other to point out that you have been suspected of socking. Concerning this list, WP is an encyclopedia and therefore I think this list doesn't belong anywhere here. I'm afraid if we're going to keep such lists then a vast number of things can be turned into lists. What would be next ? Lists of Hindi-language media, Lists of Urdu-language media, Lists of Bengali-language media, Lists of Telugu-language media, Lists of Marathi-language media. ? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Right. You're not attacking me. You're just stating a fact when you say that there's an open SPI on me and the fact that you completely neglected to mention that it's been open forever and has gained no traction whatsoever was what? An oversight? Get for real. Now, your argument in that comment is bankrupt. First of all, each article is judged on its own notability. Whether or not this one is kept isn't going to affect how your other hypotheticals turn out. Second, this is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's a list of lists. We have policy, cited by me and unaddressed by you, that explains why this kind of thing is notable. Second, it's not a directory. If you read the policy you're hinting at there you failed to understand it. Really, at this point the only decent thing to do is to withdraw the nomination as, even after all this talk, you have still failed to propound valid reasons for deletion. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If it make sense, we can merge and Redirect this to Media in Chennai. What do you say? -- Saqib ( talk) 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:34, 16 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) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ray Cowdery

Ray Cowdery (  | 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 was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Insufficient sources to establish notability per WP:CREATIVE. Amazon is not a WP:RS. Authors' own works are not acceptable as notability sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 02:43, 16 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) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I would like to cite Wikipedia: Pillar no. 5: No firm rules — Spirit must matter more than strict adherence to the letter of the law. The Fifth Pillar even goes sofar as to link directly to the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
In my opinion, Wikipedia as a whole benefits more from keeping the article, than losing it. -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 08:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Funny — when I engaged to the fundraising appeal banner, to make a donation yesterday, the page displayed this quote from Jimbo Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all knowledge."
Somehow doesn't sound like he cares more about criteria than about information to me ?? -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 14:26, 18 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) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hussain Al-Khabbaz

Hussain Al-Khabbaz (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 09:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:32, 16 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) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jerry Umberger

Jerry Umberger (  | 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 John from Idegon ( talk) 01:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 16 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) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

T. T. A. Parasuram

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

Despite several prods being removed, I can't even find a single source to support that this person existed. The two included make no mention of this person under any name and do not support anything that they cite. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Fails A7, has a credible claim of notability. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 16 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Stanley Ocitti

Stanley Ocitti (  | 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:NBASKETBALL, contested Prod. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete, although there is a lot of complete information, I'm not getting many web results about this particular player. startTerminal ( haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 00:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:SPORTCRIT as having "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" through FIBA. This is no different than a soccer player representing their country in an international tournament.-- TM 01:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment I do not agree that this passage from WP:SPORTCRIT suggests blanket notability for those playing at the highest level of every sport in every country - every sport has different standards of what the "highest level" is in their individual SSGs. These are listed at WP:NBASKETBALL. You absolutely cannot make a blanket statement that professional athletes at the highest level of any country are notable. The example is the Olympics, which is a broad "highest level" for amateur competition (historically anyway). You need to demonstrate that this subject meets WP:GNG in my opinion (because even if he meets the sport guideline he would sill need to meet GNG to be notable). FIBA Africa isn't the highest level anyway, it is a qualification tournament for the FIBA World Cup - has he played in that? Rikster2 ( talk) 20:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, AfroBasket is a continental championship, like EuroBasket. The qualification for the World Cup has changed throughout the years and today there is a separate qualification tournament for the it. It is true that the top teams qualify for the Olympics but then again, countries participating in basketball at the Olympics qualify for the continental championships. Dammit_steve ( talk) 14:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It is still not a top level tournament in my eyes - that’s just the World Cup and Olympics (world scope, not continental scope) for basketball. And in my opinion we shouldn’t be trying to game the “general criteria” of the guideline when Sports specific guidelines and GNG exist. Rikster2 ( talk) 16:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It is for African countries and every bit as major as any regional international tournament. Would you say the same for UEFA European Championship or is it just an African thing?-- TM 22:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a regional tournament, not a major tournament like the Olympics or the World Cup. Regional basketball tournaments dont have that level of notabilty. Spanneraol ( talk) 23:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The winner of the tournament qualifies for the Olympics. So again, are you saying that regional qualifying tournaments are not major tournaments or are you arguing that Africa's highest international competition specifically should be excluded?-- TM 23:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, the winner goes to the Olympics, which would be the highest level competition. Rikster2 ( talk) 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
None of the regional qualifying tournaments should qualify. Spanneraol ( talk) 23:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It is not a regional qualifying tournament, it is continental championship. Dammit_steve ( talk) 14:05, 18 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) 14:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rana Mazumder

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

Lousy sources. Just two sources which link leads to nothing. A vanity-BLP to me. I googled the singer and found a few youtube videos and nothing in-depth as RS. EROS message 11:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I agree. However I feel like we should try expanding the article or try to find sources to provide notability instead of getting it through AfD without trying to improve the article, just my opinion, thanks. ATZNA 14:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The article has been online for over 8 years, I think we should refresh the article, if sources are not found then I would agree with your vote.Thanks. ATZNA 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The search tools produce quite a few mentions in articles for "news" and "Jstor," however nothing close to dedicated. An IMDb search indicates a playback singer busy in Bangladeshi cinema for about 10 years, but who hasn't yet reached the threshold for Wikipedia notability. Tapered ( talk) 07:13, 19 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) 14:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kichu Na Bola Kotha

Kichu Na Bola Kotha (  | 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 cited. I googled the film online and found renowned Indian press, Times of India but it hardly has any depth in it and is rather like an IMBD listing. Other sites include deezer. No RS with significant coverage. EROS message 11:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:11, 16 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_16&oldid=1142617238"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE