Home • Search • Translate
Photos • Location

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 April 5 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. There were a number of users arguing to keep, but most of them presented no policy-based arguments or sources. The one source that looked reasonable, [1] was discussed and found to be insufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Amb Jogi

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

The subject does not appear to meet GNG.. he has got some trivial coverage from independent reliable sources such as here and here but nothing significant. The article contains OR. while language isn't relevant to our notability criteria at all but one should expect a bio on a relevant language edition of WP however in this casen no article in Urdu or even Sindhi WP.. I tried WP:BEFORE this nomination, but was unsuccessful, unfortunately. Saqib ( talk) 17:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, There are sufficient references to be kept. Jogi 007 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. -- Saqib ( talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
SLF page 11 Music & [2], Play it here & Listen . Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 22:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib:, Dear, SEe this one] .... Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 22:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You need to see WP:SOURCES which defines what count as a reliable source. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Arif80s: It would be better if you establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. -- Saqib ( talk) 08:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Dear Saqib please [ [3]] [ [4]] & [ [5]]-- Arif80s ( talk) 10:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You've provided links to his performances, not coverage which discusses him. Trivial mention in Dawn. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Dear Saqib you are not a judge, mind it. Amb Jogi is a folk performer of Sindh. If you don't know about Amb Jogi, it is question mark of your ability to judge these type of personalities. Arif80s ( talk) 11:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Arif80s: You know you're making personal remarks. -- Saqib ( talk) 11:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: Wikipedia is free encyclopedia, please don't take it personally. My above remarks is very reasonable. Arif80s ( talk) 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
No I don't think your remarks were justified. Our policy says comment on content, not on the contributor. -- Saqib ( talk) 12:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Our policy says You are claiming that Wikipedia is your property🤔. Please clarify your position? Arif80s ( talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You're needlessly nitpicking on my use of words is pretty lame mate. Don't you have anything relevant to the topic to talk about?-- Saqib ( talk) 03:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Who are you Mr. @ Saqib:? please clear your position in the light of your above comments. Arif80s ( talk) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You should assume good faith @ Arif80s:.. I said "our policy say"s not "my policy says" and the former one is not prohibited either. See this. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Existence ≠ Notability.. with a few exceptions., if someone has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, it is presumed to be not suitable for a stand-alone article on WP. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atlantic306: This is not a national TV channel coverage. And the coverage in RS is passing mentions, nothing in-depth. -- Saqib ( talk) 19:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
This reliable source here confirms he has appeared on Pakistan Television Corporation, the youtube video is of something different Atlantic306 ( talk) 09:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atlantic306: I think you misinterpreted. Dawn price says "the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation arranged a benefit concert in Ms Shaikh’s honour at the Hyderabad station of the PBC" so it does not passes criteria 12 of WP:NMUSIC.. criteria 12 says "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." whereas in this case the subject merely performed and was not a featured subject. Further, the programme was on-aired on Hyderabad station of PBC, not nationwide. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
And, 306, you are back with your regular nonsense. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
See WP:NPA, passing a SNG criterion is not nonsense as the article refers to a different television production than the concert. Your comments at AFD are becoming abusive so please consider that bad attitude editors ruin AFD for many good faith contributors Atlantic306 ( talk) 08:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atlantic306: Please provide the TV-related passage here. -- Saqib ( talk) 08:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The performance section mentions programmes made in Dubai, will look for sources to confirm it later, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 09:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atlantic306: I thought you was referring to Dawn ref which you provided above. Well if we speak of content in the article, I would say obviously made up, and no verification. On a related note, K.T.N TV is not a national TV channel and performing somewhere in a concert in Dubai is not significant. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete clearly not enough to meet GNG; the one reference is fairly trivial and refers to him as "Ustad Amb Jogi". The only additional content I find is a few Youtube videos by the subject. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Insufficient sourcing to establish notability, and I can't find anything better. This may be a search bubble issue (I'm not going to find things that require Hindi search terms) but unless some of the defenders above can provide such sources, they have to be treated as nonexistent. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per lack of references to establish any kind of notability. London Hall ( talk) 19:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails our guidelines for musicians, despite the "rare talent" and other things claimed by his sock army rather suspiciously enthusiastic group of supporters. We're a bit wary here of claims that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, as many articles kept on those grounds are just deleted a few months later when the promised sources (shockingly!) never show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thank you for the massive improvements to the article! ansh 666 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Nissan Maru

Nissan Maru (  | 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 WWII-era Japanese merchant ship. Originally tagged A1 by Spasage but doesn't qualify for that. ansh 666 23:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Combined Fleet is the most authoritative website on the Imperial Japanese Navy and has been cited in books considered RS google books, and is managed by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, who co-wrote a respected history of the Battle of Midway. Kges1901 ( talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While it's clear that he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, that is irrelevant if he can meet the WP:GNG. There is no clear consensus on this point. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Conor Masterson

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

Nothing has changed since the first AfD notability-wise. Still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and all that. Tagged G4 by JMHamo, but it doesn't qualify. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm okay with draftification, if it comes to that. ansh 666 00:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 05:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 12:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
No reason to salt if it's deleted, this is only the second deletion and it's only because of his contested sudden rise in notability. SportingFlyer talk 04:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Youth Journalism International

Youth Journalism International (  | 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's creator and biggest contributor has a conflict of interest bias against the article and is abusing multiple accounts. The main user (now blocked) can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiernanmc. They seem to edit articles relating to Youth Journalism International's founder, Steve Collins (journalist) (also being nominated for deletion), and other related pages. It appears that the following users are evading the block put in place for the main user:

  • 134.181.107.236
  • 2604:6000:9802:5100:857:c3c2:d088:4cd0 (when 134.181.107.236 was reverted this one popped up and began editing Youth Journalism International)

The original deletion proposal had the following:

According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Violates WP:DEL-CONTENT (not enough citations); goes against WP:ATD-M (no suitable merge location); fails WP:SIGCOV (all 5 tenants violated); fails WP:SUSTAINED (sustained coverage not proved); supports WP:SPIP (look at citations); supports WP:NEWSEVENT (used news events to create faulty notability); I could go on... but perhaps most importantly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on its majority of edits. CamdenEric ( talk) 14:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Neither the present nomination nor the previous nomination seem to include any actual valid reasons for deletion, which is because there aren't any. This organization clearly satisfies WP:GNG. There's the Hartford Courant article already cited. Also the Daily Iowan and profile at the Cato Institute by Nat Hentoff. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 15:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Those two sources contain merely mere mentions, they make no commentary on the organisation. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
      • You know what, Mr. Smokey, that's just not true. For instance, here's just one excerpt from the Hentoff source: Which is why I was delighted to discover the global nonprofit Youth Journalism International (YJI), headquartered in West Hartford, Connecticut. It mentors young people in their teens and 20s from around the world in the art and ethics of journalism. The husband and wife team of Steve Collins and Jackie Majerus started YJI in 1994 for students interested in pursuing a career in journalism. Slowly, this small, informal group grew to include students from other states and, eventually, started to receive inquiries from students in foreign countries. At the time, Steve and Jackie were both working full-time as reporters for the Bristol (Ct.) Press. That sure looks like more than a "mere mention" as you would disingenuously have it. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A worthy organisation, sure, but nobody has really paid focused attention to it. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Absolutely satisfies WP:GNG. CamdenEric is a single-purpose user who only exists to keep actor Stephen Collins at a high profile. Now that the founder of this org, Steve Collins, has been removed from Wikipedia, as per his nom, this page likely doesn't concern him anymore. 73.5.132.206 ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a strange duck. From what I can see, an SPA supporting actor Stephen Collins and using his 7th Heaven character's name is battling an SPA that keeps popping up with different IP addresses who is focused on promoting journalist Stephen Collins. Nonetheless, I'm voting based on the merits of the article, not any assumed biases in the voting and nomination process. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Assumed biases towards the page are irrelevant for this discussion. From my perspective, the Organization hasn't received enough coverage to be relevant for Wikipedia. However, I will change my mind, if someone can provide some decent sources. Wikitigresito ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete’’’ I created an account with the intent of trying to fix the entry but I can’t find any sources not already listed. This is not much of en entry and it needs signifant work to even make it relevant. Edmaasman ( talk) 18:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Beverly de Nance

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

While, according to the CFSC article, she and her partner did win two bronze medals back in the 1950s, that does not qualify as notability as per WP:SKATER. Nothing turned up in searches regarding her either, so she doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Micropoint

Micropoint (  | 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 claim to notability and no reliable sources can be found. KingAnd God 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. While not an area I am familiar with, given this is a poorly attended AFD and I read French, I took a look at the sourcing in the French wikipedia article. Two of the sources wouldn't load for me, but otherwise *collectively* they didn't pass our en.wp standards for an article. I wouldn't go as far as KingAndGod and say *none* of the sources are relevant to GNG, but taken collectively we do need multiple reliable independent sources that are more than passing mentions and I am not seeing that. Martinp ( talk) 19:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Self-written spam for non-notable, repeated attempts, likely SP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Chandan Saxena

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

Appears to be a not notable musician. The two sources already in the article are the only things I could find. One is a blog and the other looks like it's just a photo gallery. The Living Limitless things appears to be... a thing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Chandan Saxena. Possible he was a set musician or something. GMG talk 19:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Josip Vujčić. MBisanz talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Where the Penguins Fly

Where the Penguins Fly (  | 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 non-notable film. I could find only one article online which discusses the film in any detail ( [12](in Croatian)), published while the film was still in production. I could not find any reviews (or any info about its reception), nor evidence the film had a theatrical release. It does not meet WP:NFOE. GregorB ( talk) 18:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I removed that PROD as highly inappropriate. It is reasonable target for merger from here. Deleting it while this AFD under discussion undermines reasonable consideration. Inappropriate like it is to delete substantial content from any article at AFD, or just before nominating for AFD. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Doncram: Removing the prod certainly was your prerogative, but it's just dragging the procedure for no substantial reason. Prod expires after seven days, thus it would be deleted after this AfD is closed. I was under impression that merge votes here were based more on the fact that the director's article exists, than on merits of notability and sourcing: the two of us, native speakers found nothing. We're dealing with a common WP:WALLEDGARDEN COI situation, as can be easily evidenced by username of Jvujcic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No such user ( talk) 07:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I'd volunteer to do the merge into Josip Vujčić should that be the outcome of this discussion, but frankly I don't see any mergeable content. If that is indeed the case, then Doncram's point is moot. GregorB ( talk) 12:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Not moot. Whether it is a redirect to that article, with bare mention of this film, or a larger merge, doesn't matter. It still is unhelpful to delete the merger/redirect target proposed, when AFD about this film article is going on. About PROD expiring after 7 days, I am not sure about that (about whether they are sometimes ended sooner i dunno), but it conceivably could end before this AFD is done. AFDs often run for more than a week.
It certainly seems argumentative to PROD the director/writer article, which I would think is almost certainly more central, more notable than just one of their works, while full-blown AFD is going on about the work. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You have a point - indeed, it is better not to interfere with the process in this way, even if the end result should turn out to be the same. GregorB ( talk) 21:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sathiya

Sathiya (  | 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 film created by a sock with no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Eena Meena Deeka (TV series)

Eena Meena Deeka (TV 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)

Indian television shows are seldom notable, largely due to lack of reliable media coverage. This is unfortunately one of them, further worsened by the fact that there are no sources in the article. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

FideliTrade Incorporated

FideliTrade Incorporated (  | 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 company lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are mainly listings or other items that do not meet WP:RS. reddogsix ( talk) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 01:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete a respectable business, but none of the sources are really independent. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While I couldn't check all sources (paywalls etc), I concur with both remarks by reddogsix. There's unfortunately a lot of people who believe an avalanche of in-passing mentions confer notability and provide enough to write an article, and indeed sometimes the impression such sourcing gives of apparent depth makes such articles survive. However, we really don't have enough to write a solid, meaty, independent article here. Given the issues of many non-notable businesses trying to promotionally get articles in wikipedia (note, I am not saying that was the situation here), we do need to be reasonably strict and consistent on this, at least where someone starts the discussion. Martinp ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

KnightsBridge Foreign Exchange

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

Previously PRODed by User:Robert McClenon. I concur with their rationale: "Not a notable corporation; see corporate notability. Promotional in tone." SmartSE ( talk) 18:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sheldon Herzig

Sheldon Herzig (  | 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. Cannot find any substantial coverage of him in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I disagree. Many notable academic journals and conferences have been mentioned, as well as established academic universities and philanthropic endeavors. Please reply on my talk page, as I have completely redone this page and believe it provides more than substantial evidence to Dr. Herzig's notability. BlakeRM ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Has not received SIGCOV in RS. I also do not think the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC, though they hold the post of Clinician Teacher at the Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, and have authored a number of papers in ophthalmology journals. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 01:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hopelessly promotional. For example I checked out the source provided for the statement, "Herzig has been recognized as a leader in the use of laser technologies in refractive surgery", and found that all that it said was that he had been "honoured" by a hospital staff association for unstated reasons along with dozens of other people. The rest of the article is written in the same vein. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doctors are typically not notable unless they are recognized as particularly significant or innovative in their specialty (i.e. WP:NACADEMIC); don't see that here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Blatant Doom Trip

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

There don't appear to be multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage or indeed anything else to satisfy WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Hzh ( talk) 12:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - A tribute to a notable band featuring other notable bands, but the album itself has attracted little notice. It has a fairly substantial review at AllMusic and a mention at Consequence of Sound [13]. Those might be enough for WP:NALBUM #1 but I consider that to be a bit of a stretch. Otherwise the album's only notice has been in a few fan blogs. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The Consequence of Sound article only gives a passing mention to the album, so it does not count towards establishing notability. I haven't been able to find multiple sources beyond those that merely give trivial mentions, simple listing, or blogs. Hzh ( talk) 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Metafest

Metafest (  | 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 festival, no coverage to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Douglas Engelbart. Up to editors to determine what if anything to merge. Sandstein 16:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Purple Numbers

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No independent sources cired. Google search for "Purple Numbers + HTML" gives scarce results Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, I did find a reasonable source [1] but still just worth a merge/redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I would not call a brief mention among hundreds of wikis "a reasonable source". 14A (128)
The idea is fringe and will hardly ever be used. Just imagine the readability of this page littered with "purple numbers" at the end of every paragraph (i.e., basically each sentence) like this: 14B (129)
I don't think this looks nice, see here for a real example. 14C (130)
Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, by reasonable source, I didn't mean that's enough to justify a stand-alone article. But, as I said, redirects are WP:CHEAP. It doesn't take much to justify a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Agree; a redirect could have been a good option. But what about WP:UNDUE to merge into his bio? I do not see much sources about Engelbart which speak about purple numbers. If there aint then we shouldnt. What's more, in this article I do not see reliable third-party refs which discuss he subject in any detail, only a bunch of enthusiasts. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Brothers Matias

Brothers Matias (  | 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 three young brothers who publish a lot of on Wattpad and Youtube but do not appear to have much real notability. Article almost entirely written by one editor, who has edited almost nothing else and may have COI. Pam D 18:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. If anyone really does want to merge the content here let me know. Hut 8.5 21:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

John James (American politician)

John James (American 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)

Simply running for office is not a notable event in itself. This individual is not particularly notable and the sources used include his own website. Cssiitcic ( talk) 17:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. As usual, no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat — but nothing stated or sourced here has demonstrated that he's already eligible to have an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If James wins the Republican nomination in the August Primary, that might lead to him becoming notable in the build-up to the general election, in some cases candidate for senate do become notable for such. However at present he is not notable, and with Michigan also having a gubanatorial race this year and the senate race involving an incumbent, it is open to question if there will be enough coverage that James could become notable for anything short of winning. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not yet notable, does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 21:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge / redirect to article on election. A senate race is notable. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bearcat and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian ( talk) 01:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gurinder Singh Mann

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

This article is a WP:COATRACK for sexual assault allegations that have never achieved more than passing coverage. More substantial discussion hasn't happened and almost certainly won't happen because the subject fails WP:PROF. The "Global Institute for Sikh Studies" appears to be a one-man website. Guy ( Help!) 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In the humanities, we judge by books. Two books published by Oxford University Press is sufficient for anyones's notability. A major contributor to standard subject encyclopedia adds to it. Full professor at a major US research university confirms it. Notability depends on the publications, not the website. How to deal with the problematic material is another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete. Fails WP:PROF. VickSPaul1 ( talk) 14:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Global Institute of Sikh Studies is a one man show. Other Professors also have books published by Oxford University Press but are not given wikipedia pages and their pages are deleted. § reply
find me a person with two books published by OUP that has been deleted for reason of not meeting WP:PROF. Possibly some may have been deleted, but for promotionalism or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable independent sources. If his books are significant there must be reviews. Happy to reconaider if some sources are put forward. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't know where this "I'm not seeing any coverage" stuff is coming from; clearly, those editors are not looking in the right places. I just added nine published book reviews of four of his books as sources to the article [updated later: 12 reviews of 6 books]. That's enough for a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. His (former) named chair also gives him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. As with some other recent cases, the sexual harassment case is not notable in itself, but needs to be mentioned as a significant aspect of the life of a subject who is notable for other reasons. But the subject should be distinguished from a different person also named Gurinder Singh Mann, director of the Sikh Museum Project in England [15] and author of two more books (Sri Dasam Granth: Questions and Answers, and The Granth of Guru Gobind Singh: Essays, Lectures and Translations). — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 for having held a named chair, and passes WP:AUTHOR as well. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Howard Griffin Gallery

Howard Griffin Gallery (  | 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 probably did not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP even before they were revised, and surely does not now that they have been. Several of the artists who have shown there are notable, and several have received coverage of their shows; but selling a notable product does not necessarily make the seller notable (a car salesman does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car). I have not found any of the substantial in-depth coverage of the gallery itself that would allow us either to keep this or to write an article on the topic. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Champion Shave

Champion Shave (  | 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 razor company. Article fails WP:NCORP as the only coverage of the company that exisits is trival, concerned only with Usain Bolt's finances, or are press releases (lots of PR Newswire seen when conducting a before check). Note that the company does not inherit notability ( WP:NOTINHERITED) simply due to the fact that it has a famous founder or famous spokespeople. Nothing indicates why the company is unique among razor companies, nor why it is significant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ellen Roth Deutsch

AfDs for this article:
Ellen Roth Deutsch (  | 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 seem to find any coverage in independent, reliable media that would convince me that Deutsch is a notable artist. As far as I can tell, she has had one solo-exhibition at the ARC gallery, which has an interesting history, but isn't sufficient to support a claim per WP:NARTIST, which requires either a significant exhibition, significant critical attention. Representation in the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums is also not applicable. A group exhibit in the Noyes Art Gallery is not a significant exhibition either. Vexations ( talk) 16:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A rename/redirect/merge has been proposed late in this discussion, with no subsequent discussion. This "Keep" should not be considered a factor against taking one of those actions if a consensus can be reached to do so on the article talk page or other discussion venue. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dave Weasel

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

Subject previously deleted at AfD, still appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. I am unable to find significant in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. The one incident that did garner some very limited coverage appears to have been considered and discarded in the previous AfD. He has made it onto some charts since then so I am not calling for a G4 speedy here. But I am not seeing a real claim to notability. Am I missing something? Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - It's not just any chart, he's number one on the official Billboard comedy chart which is backed by Nielsen SoundScan, which factors in all retail stores, proving he has the top-selling comedy album in the world at the moment. This certainly proves notability. It is also sourced and referenced that he also had the top viewed and shared satire news stories of 2016.-- YeahImadethis ( talk) 21:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
As far as I know the only area where charts are a factor in ringing the WP:N bell is for music. We require significant and in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It also says "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." he has over half a million followers on his "verified" twitter account, though it is not sourced on this page. Another consideration is "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." and being the top selling current comedian in the world should count as prolific and significant, and his news satire stories being shared/viewed that much and the coverage on it should be unique. Apologies for the length. -- YeahImadethis ( talk) 22:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The number of followers that a person has on social media is irrelevant to notability or lack thereof. To count as fulfilling the "large fan base or significant cult following" criterion, a claim has to be reliably sourceable to evidence of real-world impact (e.g. a fan club organizing a full-on "fans of Dave Weasel" convention attended by hundreds or thousands of people from all over the world) — how many people clicked "like" on a piece of user-generated content has nothing to do with it. And every single person who exists at all could always claim that their contributions in their field were "unique", by simple virtue of the fact that their contributions were theirs instead of somebody else's, so simply listing the things a person did does not satisfy that criterion either — that criterion is passed by reliable source coverage analyzing the ways in which the person's contributions were innovative and influential on people who came after them, not by simply listing his workography and deeming it inherently "unique" just because it's his. Bearcat ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That is fair, you are correct. Comedians should be held to their own standard seperate from actors and other public figures as they are more like musicians in that they rely on ticket, album, stream sales for their craft. Just a thought. -- YeahImadethis ( talk) 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but flag for improvement. Topping the comedy albums chart on Billboard certainly is a credible notability claim for a comedian — strafing the bottom edges of the chart for a week or two probably wouldn't be, but reaching #1 certainly demonstrates a significant following — but the article does still need to be referenced better than it is right now, to more evidence of reliable source coverage about him, supporting more content than just stating that "he exists, the end", before it can be considered a good article. Bearcat ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - #1 Billboard Comedy album (and verified) is a very strong indicator of notability. Readers will want encyclopedic information about this topic. Currently we don't do much of that, and it may not be possible yet, but there is a little bit of useful, verified information which is better than nothing, therefore Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and redirect to I'm 30. There's very little coverage on Weasel, certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. If he were a business person known for working at only one notable company, the consensus would be to include his info in that company article. In this case the album has almost no coverage either, but did hit #1 on the Billboard Comedy chart. Also interesting that he did a fake article for his fake paper, which apparently went quite viral, but here's still no corresponding profile coverage of him or the paper. I found this archive btw - which must be the deleted article, and also has limited sources. [ [17]] Since WP:TOOSOON also comes to mind, this is better off as an album article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Advok8.in

Advok8.in (  | 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 coverage in reliable sources at all. All the coverage comes from either advertisements/paid advertisements, or press release. Lacks significant coverage; fails notability guidelines for organizations and companies, as well as general notability criteria.

All the sources provided within the article are clearly paid advertisements for the company's app. Three of which are identical to each-other upto every single word. The "Sarita Magazine" source has a different title, but again the content is identical to the rest of the three, making 4 identical articles. I couldnt read one source, as it was neither in English, nor in Hindi. The launchstory.in is different, but i am not sure about its reliability; looks highly doubtful. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

 Update: After nomination, the creator has removed the paid articles from sources. Here is the previous version. Also, one doesnt need to be familiar with hindi language, or Devanagari script; the titles of sources in reflist/references are exactly the same. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
 Note: For future records, the author tried to speedy delete the article under G7. special:diff/835395676 —usernamekiran (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discourse regarding the article's tone and sources can continue on its talk page if desired. North America 1000 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Green Tomato Cars

Green Tomato Cars (  | 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 minicab firm. Notability not demonstrated. Most of the refs are trade papers and the like. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not promotional, I've just cleaned it up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Ritchie333:--If the edits, executed by you, were your definition of cleanup, well....... ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
And, this was a good-enough tagging. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Ritchies massive improvements as well as the abundance of sources on Google. – Davey2010 Talk 16:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Trade press sources are necessary for some types of topic as they provide a good insider perspective on technical issues. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Pure advertising. The contents of the article is exactly what they would use as a press release, brand names and all. Juudging by the advertorials and well-managed references, they have quite enough disguised press releases in circulation without our adding to them. It wouldn't matter how notable the firm might be --not that I trust the refs to be objective enough to show it-- because Not Advertising is one of our basic principles. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Since I (and El Cid) cleaned the article up (see the stats), are you suggesting we don’t know how to write a neutral encyclopedia article? I’d be interested to know what sort of press release would talk about a product recall leading to financial problems. And last time I looked, WP:N is still a thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I judge by the state of the article. Articles I've written or rewritten have been deleted also. I agree that there is one RS about financial problems that might be more than a notice. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Without minimally under-emphasizing your immense content-creation/upgradation-skills, which is surely justified by the numerous GAs etc. developed by you (to be fair, I've only one and that speaks volumes....), going by your edits at this article, I guess the answer about neutral and non-promotional prose will be no.And, I guess that's got to do something with the screening of PR stuff, business-website-spam-mentions etc. from reliable sources. ~ Winged Blades Godric 06:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't think you have - you've just removed the sources you don't like - and have addressed your concerns on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Newroderick895 16:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kladdkaka

Kladdkaka (  | 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 with just one source. Needs to be restarted. Newroderick895 15:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It has its own day?? Truly, I have wasted my life living outside of Sweden. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
6 November. Which is also the day we eat this. (Though to be honest, Sweden in November requires a lot of chocolate - it's grim.)-- bonadea contributions talk 19:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's two basic arguments in play here.

The first is whether some of the sources, specifically Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are WP:RS. I don't know the full history of WP:VG/S, i.e. is it just an essay, or real policy, but those two sources are listed there and it seems like a cogent analysis of the source space, so I'm going to accept that they're both WP:RS.

The second is whether the actual cited references are really indicative of WP:N, or if they're just recycled press releases. I can't discern any consensus on that point.

I don't know if this should be closed as keep or no consensus. Given that they're effectively the same thing, however, I'm not to going sweat it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

AdvertCity

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

This article has referenciness, but they are not reliable, independent, secondary sources, and Google doesn't offer much hope of replacements that are. Fails to establish notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the publisher (i.e. going beyond listings and recycled press releases). Guy ( Help!) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Destructoid are blogs and not sufficient to establish notability. Guy ( Help!) 08:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
JzG: Unfortunately the opinion you are presenting is not supported by consensus. Whether a source's container is a blog-type news site, a print magazine, a podcast or a town crier, what matters is journalistic/editorial oversight. You can refer to WP:VG/S to see existing consensus in the evaluation of industry-specific sources -- Rock, Paper, Shotgun isn't just some blog shite and has been the subject of lengthy discussions resulting in consensus for its general appropriateness; on the other hand discussions about Destructoid resulted in a more case-by-case careful approach, requiring that individual authors be evaluted separately when necessary, however unfortunately in this case the author Alasdair Duncan (not Alasdair Duncan, not the 60-year-old actor, not the Je Zaum artist) shares a name (surprisingly, at least to me!) with other people having coverage online, complicating research. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It's not an opinion, it's what we say about them in our articles! That's why I linked them. Now, you may mean that "consensus" among fans of games is to ignore WP:RS and declare them reliable anyway, and that is possibly true, we have the same problem in a number of areas. Guy ( Help!) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Although I said this on your WP:RSN post, I'll say it here, too: While, yes, they do post in blog format, Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are extremely prominent; they have good reputations in the industry, they exert editorial control and basic fact-checking and so on. I wouldn't cite them for things outside of the narrow field of game reviewing (since that's their reputation and the expertise of their staff), but within that field I think it's absurd to suggest that they couldn't at least be cited for the "significant commentary" that WP:NVIDEOGAMES requires. As far as games commentary goes, they're top-tier sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • keep - Contrary to your comment about "recycled press releases" - there has never even been a press release made about this game. When I have edited this page in the past I have always made sure to quote only legitimate review sites, and I have previously verified all the references here and they all looked fine to me at the time. Rock paper shotgun have covered the game on two separate occasions; for an indie game you can't expect much more than that these days. Slow Riot ( talk) 07:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Slow Riot ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply
  • Delete - The article has been WP:BOMBARDed with sources, but from an in depth read, they are all essentially the same news release about how the game's on Kickstarter. The nominator is highly incorrect in his assertion that those sites are not reliable sources, see WP:VG/S, but it lacks WP:SUSTAINED. In terms of post release critique there is very little, and the article uses weasel words to cast it in a better light, such as using user reviews, which shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article. The game lacks notability and does suffer from recycling of similar sources. Yes, it is hard for an indie game to get on Wikipedia, but that's kind of the point. Wikipedia is not a directory of indie games, if your game doesn't get on Wikipedia that doesn't mean it sucks. Just that it didn't pick up notability from the media. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There's a lot of bad sources here, and the article needs serious cleanup, but Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun trivially pass the bare minimum of "significant commentary" required for WP:NVIDEOGAMES. I don't feel that the fact that they're published in a blog format is sufficient to disqualify them; their staff are almost all established professionals in the field (granted that the reputation of both outlets is sufficient that being hired by one can turn someone into an established professional in the field), they have basic editorial controls, and they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would still be cautious about using them for other things, but I think it's absurd to suggest that they're not usable for uncontroversal "significant commentary" in a direct game review, at a bare minimum, since they have a strong reputation there. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep there are several bad references which can be removed, which I would be happy to help with if the article is kept (for example there is no need to mention, let along include a source about a lack of metacritic score). There are just enough usable references left to establish notability. ZettaComposer ( talk) 12:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In support of the comments about the sources being poor: The Rock, Paper, Shotgun references are simple announcements. If these are the best sources available, which seems to be the conclusion at the RSN discussion, then the article is pure WP:SOAP. The Destroid ref is no better. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There is still plenty of systemic bias in favour of the interests of young male Westerners in Wikipedia. In the case of pornography the ridicule has been enough for us to tighten our notability guidelines quite dramatically, but there is still plenty to do about other topics such as popular music and computer games. We discount blogs and other such unreliable sources for most topics, so we should do the same here. Where are the books from university presses and the academic papers that have coverage of AdvertCity? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hammer Film Productions. MBisanz talk 13:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Terry Ilott

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

An essentially sourceless CV of middling film-industry executive. I'm not seeing any sign of industry impact (awards, say). Calton | Talk 14:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to George Ezra. MBisanz talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

George Ezra & Friends

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was = Non notable podcast Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep Appears like it might be notable due to the guests that appear on the show. Froome2017 ( talk) 14:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Garhi, Nepal

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

If you believe geonames, "Garhi" is simply a synonym for the Udayapur District; it is also, however, a common name component (or its variant, gadhi) which appears to mean "fort", if Sindhuli Gadhi and Rasua Garhi are any indication. What I cannot find is a specific "Garhi" village whose principal name isn't something longer. I am open to the notion of redirecting this back to Garhi, but the current claims of this uncited article are untenable as it stands. Mangoe ( talk) 11:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, we'll probably end up deleting this as there is just not a enough information to locate it properly. I've looked in Geohacks The Times Atlas of the World around "40 kilometres south-west of...Kathmandu" and turned up nothing. Without precise coordinates or a definite source I don't know where we go from here. However, I'm not going for delete just yet as I came up with a couple of sources that suggest that a place of this name does, or once did, exist. In this book there is "Finally the fourth generation of Narkunwar Singh, named Jai Singh Chand left Baligarh in Garhi, Nepal, crossed the river Kali and came west in search of a permanent homestead." But it's only snippet view. In The Crown Encyclopedia and Gazetteer there is "G3 78 811 Garhi, Nepal" which appears to be a map reference, but again, only snippet view so I can't be sure. If anyone can actually access either of those sources and confirm that they do verify existence then we should keep per WP:NPLACE. Spinning Spark 17:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That "811 Garhi" is actually "Sil Garhi" and points to a spot at the west end of Nepal on the map. Mangoe ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Refer to talk page. There's reasonable agreement here that this shouldn't be a stand alone article. I think we're looking at a merge somewhere, but I don't see any agreement on a target. There's already a discussion happening at Talk:Asian Highway Network. It seems like that's a better place to continue to hash this out. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

AH374

AH374 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined by myself - initial report said No sources, original article creator is blocked sock which was proved to be incorrect, as user was blocked as NOTHERE. No opinion on subject Night fury 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Laurence Brown (writer)

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

After cleaning up this article to remove sources that fail to meet third-party source criteria, I am convinced that there's nothing notable about this man. He has written books, but that is not sufficient evidence by itself of notability unless it can be shown that the books are notable. Neither he nor the books have been covered by third-party media or other sources not connected with him to the extent that notability is established. George Custer's Sabre 05:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone contributing to this discussion would be far better advised to do based on this version of the article rather than the current one, from which the nominator removed every assertion of notability before first attempting to WP:PROD it and now bringing it to AfD. The nominator's justification for this removal was "Sorry but all of these sources are either commercial (ie Amazon) or sources associated with the author". While this justification would have been mostly valid (primary sources are sometimes acceptable for content, though not for notability) if the end result had been a viable and properly sourced article, this behaviour is completely inappropriate if, as in this case, the end result is a version of the article (effectively no content at all) even more likely to be deleted than the previous one (badly sourced content) - it is usually a far easier matter to determine if an article should be kept if there is existing content that can help one to look for better sources than have to rebuild the article from scratch. (And, as a final side-comment, given the reasons for removing the rest of the article, it is rather strange that the one remaining sentence is sourced to an Amazon subsidiary ( Goodreads), and is in just the part of that site where the content is most likely to have come from the author or their publisher. PWilkinson ( talk) 09:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Please assume good faith my friend. The article was a puff piece based only on sources connected to the subject. On a BLP I have the right and responsibility to remove content that is poorly referenced. Check the BLP guidelines. They say: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” That’s all I did. The key instruction I followed was this: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.“ Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jeff Taylor (entrepreneur)

Jeff Taylor (entrepreneur) (  | 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: as blatant promo article; this is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 00:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude ( talk) 04:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not a bit notable. George Custer's Sabre 05:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Not a bit notable" seems harsh considering the guy founded one of the most known websites and while he has not received the most coverage, what can be found should be sufficient to satisfy WP:BASIC:
  • Thanem, T. The Monstrous Organization. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN  9780857938176 – via Google Books.
  • Gallo, Carmine. 10 Simple Secrets of the World's Greatest Business Communicators. Sourcebooks, Inc. ISBN  9781402206962 – via Google Books.
  • Virk, Rizwan (2017-10-19). Treasure Hunt: Follow Your Inner Clues to Find True Clues. Watkins Media. ISBN  9781786780577 – via Google Books.
  • Vas, Gratian (2017-12-06). Little Things about Great People: Inspirational Stories. Notion Press. ISBN  9781946390417 – via Google Books.
  • "Buffalo.dj, new start-up from Monster.com founder Jeff Taylor, will represent and record DJs". Boston.com. Retrieved 2018-04-04.
At the very least, a redirect/merge to Monster.com should be considered. Regards So Why 10:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one has commented on the references recently provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stray Kids. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Changbin (rapper)

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

Individual fails WP:NMG - He has not officially released any solo music nor has he acted which tends to be the case with idols currently, all sources are about the group he is in; not him personally. Abdotorg ( talk) 13:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg ( talk) 13:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg ( talk) 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Cullen328 "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://web.archive.org/web/20180315133422/http://viltin.hu/viltin/" ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 12:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

VILTIN Galéria

VILTIN Galéria (  | 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 any notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete it's an advertisement. I may not be able to read Hungarian, but google translate makes it clear enough that this is the gallery talking about itself. "Our mission", "we are involved". Vexations ( talk) 13:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I was giving it the benefit of the doubt as google translate is not always an exact tool. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Then again, it appears to be copied from a previous incarnation of their website. Google still has a cache. [27] Likely a copyvio, if they haven't licensed the content appropriately. Vexations ( talk) 13:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award

Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award (  | 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 appears to be a non-notable award given by a non-notable organisation. Aside from obvious press releases at the time of the awards, seemingly usually in local news media, there doesn't seem to be much to support it or indeed the (unlinked) organisation. Sitush ( talk) 12:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the article is the target of a vast paid editing ring, most likely related to this, and most recently they've even indulged in faking references. The article was originally created to promote this subject, and as I mentioned there, any coverage is incidental as the name is notable and these people seem to capitalize on the confusion. 50 to 60 plaques awarded a year. — Spaceman Spiff 22:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt the article and Block the involved editors---UPE Spam.I will repeat my PROD-rationale--Non-notable award by a non-notable body.Hardly covered nationally, other than in local news.Further, mentions in resumes aren't an indicator of notability of award, (esp. given that the notability of the recipients is itself doubtful) and coverage in unadulterated PR stuff fails to instill any confidence, either. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable award which sounds more like a PR exercise. FITINDIA 19:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This award is a notable government award and is awarded by the Government of India to outstanding persons for their outstanding achievements. No government award requires promotion or any other thing like that and this award cannot be achieved by anyone until and unless he has done something extremely outstandingly new or trending in his field. That's why a very few notable persons are given this award every year which I cited on the article's page but it was removed idk why, but those citations can still be found in the article's history. Huge media coverage is also available to support the awards notability but some people refuse to accept it even though they know that it is completely acceptable. Some people are confused that this award is given by private organisations but they are highly mistaken. ONLY and ONLY the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA gives this award. It is a government award and the government of India gives this award by itself and notable things by government don't require any promotion, they only require that people should have proper knowledge about it. Hence I think that this article should stay on the free encyclopaedia. It does not matter that what anyone says about this award but that doesn't change its notability. Sincerely — N1197L ( talk) 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC) — N1197L ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep because the‘Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award’ is mentioned in government scheme at serial No.-20 in ‘Awards.’ section of this link http://www.deccanherald.com/content/12096/government-schemes-projects-named-nehru.html while ‘Indira Gandhi Prize for National Integration’ is at serial number 19. Given that it proves that this award is being conferred by notable government body. I believe that this subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) John Carter Lambert ( talk) 17:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)— John Carter Lambert ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Note to closer: being mentioned in a government scheme, or even being a government scheme, is not itself anything of relevance to GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED, for starters. John Carter Lambert appears to be an SPA and the claim is dubious: yes, it is mentioned in an ambiguously-titled report from the Deccan Herald that is just a list of things named after the Nehru-Gandhi family but there has been no evidence that the government recognises it other than that particular list in a (not massively reliable) newspaper. Our article claims the awarding body is the All India National Unity Conference, about which no information can be found other than as an awarder. - Sitush ( talk) 17:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable award invented and conferred by non-notable organization. It is NOT conferred by the Indian Government. The coopting of Indira Gandhi's name is pretty blatant. And this wiki article seems to be an effort to confer notability on some dubious wiki article subjects. Softlavender ( talk) 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dato Roman Yek Siew Lee

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

That a person has the title of Dato' indicates that they are highly regarded in society, and as a corollary may indicate they meet the criteria for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. I note that the only references given in article are from WordPress and so are Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH-d sources that do not assist any assertion notability for Mr Yek Shirt58 ( talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Biomedical Research

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

Possibly- predatory journal from a possibly-predatory publisher (at least, Beall considers Allied Academies predatory) of questionable notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep, as its indexed in selective databases and service (JCR, Scopus, however those need to be confirmed via WP:IS since Allied Academics likes to fudge things like these to look better) and meets WP:NJOURNALS. The journal has a longer history than at Allied Academics, having been published by Andrew John Publishing before being acquired by Allied Academies/ OMICS, and from some other outlet before AJP. This is a case where Allied Academics acquired an existing notable journal in ~2016 when they purchased the Pulsus Group. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 08:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bang Krabue

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

Disambiguation page only lists one actual link. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 09:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - all listed entries are legitimate uses of the term, and per WP:NGEO are notable as legally recognized populated places, even if no separate article has been written for them yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalCost ( talk • contribs)
Comment: That's the issue. We don't create disambiguation pages for potential articles with the same name. When and if two or more Bang Krabue articles show up, then a disambiguation page is created, otherwise it's useless. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rape threats against the daughter of U.S. President

Rape threats against the daughter of U.S. President (  | 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 first thought of speedy, but whatever this is non encyclopaedic concoction with no any informative purpose other than news as it is– Ammarpad ( talk) 11:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Geneseo station

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

Proposed railway station with no significant sources. "Little other information is known" says to me non-notable. Note only source says line "was" meant to be completed 2015 Night fury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Night fury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Night fury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A search doesn't give any sources other than that given, which is irrelevant as noted - it clearly isn't acting as a reliable source. Notability most definitely not provided. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Quad Cities (train) (if that's even notable) or Delete — WP:CRYSTAL and WP:JUNK. It's only 4 sentences, and the last 3 are misstatements. No idea what "construction expectations ... have commenced" means in the article. Both sources used for the location of the station actually say that the public does not yet know which site has been picked for the train station. I've looked for substantial sources online, and as far as I can tell, there isn't even that much about the old train station in town, let alone the new one. What little news there is about the proposed station just repeats that plans are being made and sites are being decided: You can swap the years on the articles and not know the difference. Here's what I've found about the stations: "Cochran family gives mini depot to Geneseo Historical Museum" (2016-09-07) says "The depot, located on First Street, was built in 1899. After passenger trains ceased service to Geneseo, the depot was converted into office and business space." It shows, at the Geneseo Historical Museum, the last-generation Rock Island Railroad station sign and a model of the station shown at Old Geneseo Train Station in 2014. "Geneseo knows where it wants Amtrak station" (2012-11-13) has contradictory statements that IDOT "wants to put the new Amtrak station just to the east of the old railroad station in Geneseo. ... they're looking at a couple of different places for where they could put the new train station. The only one the department is currently disclosing is the one near the old train station though." It also says "IDOT and the city say they'll have a site picked out for the train station by the fall of 2013. Construction will then start on the station in 2014" which was right when Illinois' state finances went sour, which means it's probably postponed for years again. When someone uploads a photo of a 21st-century Amtrak ticket for Geneseo, let me know. -- Closeapple ( talk) 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere station, a whole series of not-stations on the similarly-not-restarted Black Hawk (Amtrak train). -- Closeapple ( talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:CRYSTAL and traincruftery. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Phelex Foundation

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

Nothing notable about the org. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miles Millar. MBisanz talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Millar Gough Ink

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

There are... a heckuva lot of notable topics surrounding this, to the point where if there is any one of them that is somehow the most valid redirect I don't see any obvious reason why.

Coverage appears to be mostly or entirely passing mention (e.g., [32], [33], [34]) in connection with related subjects, but not about this company directly. Doesn't look like it's possible to write really anything beyond what's already there, just founders and list of connected works. No depth of coverage that I can find. GMG talk 17:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I mean, yeah. But.. that doesn't mean there are any sources that treat them in any depth which can be used to write an article with. Notability is not inherited from related projects or people. GMG talk 14:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Sources such as here discuss the collaboration in depth. Perhaps the title and focus on the company is the hangup. FloridaArmy ( talk) 15:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That's not an independent published source; it's a bio to promote one of their shows. Besides that, it only mentions the company in passing in a single sentence. It's about the people. The people seem to be clearly notable. But in order to establish notability about the company (and have anything to write an article with), we need sources that deal specifically about the company, and not things or people related to it. We need sourced that deal with the company in-depth, and not just passing mention. GMG talk 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect/merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Islamic Perspective on Human Rights

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

An article on human rights in Islam is a good idea, but this is an essay per WP:NOTESSAY. It begins with a much shorter, less detailed and unsourced replica of History of human rights, then jumps to a description of the rights granted under Islam quite similar to Islam and humanity, sourced only by the Quran and Al-Risalah al-Huquq. There's a great deal of personal interpretation, especially in the second half, and I can't see much worth merging here either to History of human rights, Al-Risalah al-Huquq, or Islam and humanity. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 10:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as presently construed - ESSAY, POV issues (the multiple "peace be upon him" are a minute though noticeable feature here), and lack of RS (the Quran and Al-Risalah al-Huquq would be PRIMARY, the latter would also imply this is shia). An article on this subject, if created, should be based on modern academic texts. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Essay based on primary sources. For the article to even exist, essentially it would have to be deleted and re-built using WP:RS. XavierItzm ( talk) 11:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this palpably personal ESSAY as per WP:NOTESSAY. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This article fails NPOV and is a fork of the articles discussed in the nom made without discussion (also, Islamic ethics#Human rights). The tone and most of the material is not encyclopedic. The title doesn't match the content - the content is mostly about the Quran and a 7th century hadith and ignores anything that happened in the the area of human rights in Islam between the 7th century and the 20th. Smmurphy( Talk) 14:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Reboot (magazine)

Reboot (magazine) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources:  "Reboot (magazine)" –  news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) As mentioned on the talk page, the article is wholly unsourced both here and at hrwp. There are some possible refs for the conferences in the gamesindustry.biz, but that publication is an affiliated media partner and not about the magazine anyway. Didn't find Croatian/southeast European sources either, but ping me if you do. No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Harinath Reddy Master

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

Prod Tag removed; somewhat promotional article where the subject does not appear to be notable. He appears to have appeared on several minor dance competitions, but otherwise there is no significant coverage. Searches turn up little but Youtube videos and social media. Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 03:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As the article currently is, delete. No prejudice against rewriting an expanded version or merging into the author article. Tone 08:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Pardon, madame: pismo iz Čedada

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

It's a book. The author doesn't have an article, even at the other wiki. Not a single source. Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Pardon me, nominator, but Boris Jukic (b 1947) does have an article on the Slovenian Wikipedia which lists this book as one of his. The article is https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Jukić and it has been there since 2010. Jukic has significant coverage in GBooks and elsewhere (assuming I understand the Slovenian language sources correctly) and also many hundreds of library holdings according to worldcat [35] and presumably even more in non-members. He appears notable. Move the page to Boris Jukić and rewrite it as a biography. James500 ( talk) 19:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You're absolutely right, James500. I did look but was too hasty in my reading.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 09:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as Doomsdayer520 noted - to the tune that even in the Slovenian Wikipedia where the author has a page (and thus presumably there is more consideration on him and his works), the book does not have one. It should not have a page here, either, though an author page would certainly appear to be notable, if created. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Full Noise (aircraft)

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

One of hundreds of individual racing aircraft nothing to indicate that this is noteworthy for a mention in wikipedia so really cant support a stand-alone article. MilborneOne ( talk) 09:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Keep Not notable enough for its own article. I understand it's a first for New Zealand but we can't have an article for each individual aircraft. - Samf4u ( talk) 12:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Change my vote. Was not aware of Category:Individual aircraft, thanks for enlightening me Petebutt. - Samf4u ( talk) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article subject fails WP:GNG. Just because it has a name and is mentioned in a couple of specialist journals does not make it notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Just to add to that, WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage", which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Swiss F/A-18 simulator AfD, for example, made it abundantly clear that we do not accept a few mentions in the odd journal as establishing notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Just to comment that the Flypast entry is one of many bits of "news" that they have in each issue and really not what you consider an article. So in reality it a just a mere mention. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Border sessions

Border sessions (  | 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 this page was created on NL WP with the same content and was speedy deleted but I found that the event is supported by the city gov of The Hague as per the web of the event and on a quick Google search yields some coverage though in Dutch thus AfD'ing it here for community to decide.. Saqib ( talk) 08:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree that A7 is there (and I don't think any other CSD) - certainly indication of a innovative technical conference suggests some importance, or could be clarified extremely rapidly even if not.
I was originally agreeing delete, but there is a high quality secondary source I found on last year's conference which could be used to add a significant amount. If someone can find something further, whether in English or Dutch, there would appear to be sufficient notability to Keep. Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Nosebagbear: I think would be better if you provide links here so notability could be ascertained.. -- Saqib ( talk) 11:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib:, apologies - Makery report on Border conference Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Perhaps, someone out there hopes for the subject's increased notability through its inclusion in Wikipedia. Unfortunately for that, the causation moves in the opposite direction. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jeff Stoddard

Jeff Stoddard (  | 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 created "on request", most substantive edits are by a series of WP:SPAs, no evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC, no reliable sources. Notability asserted by inheritance. Guy ( Help!) 07:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Out of all of the bands listed in his discography, just two of them have Wikipedia articles by which I can evaluate their notability — and he wasn't a core member of either of those bands (neither band's article even mentions his name at all, in fact), but merely a session musician. But being a session musician on other bands' albums is not in and of itself a free pass over our notability standards for musicians just because the person's existence is technically verifiable in an album booklet's credits list — and he doesn't pass WP:GNG as an individual, because none of the references here are reliable sources, and neither are they about him at all. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, notability not established by the refs. Szzuk ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jode Gannon

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

All substantive edits to this article, including creation, are by three WP:SPAs. It lacks reliable independent sources to substantiate notability. The main claim to notability is by association: playing at festivals where more notable acts also appeared. One "hit" on a non-notable chart, signed to a relinked label. Google turns up nothing other than gig listings and the occasional namecheck. Guy ( Help!) 07:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Craig Mueller

Craig Mueller (  | 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 on candidate for Attorney-General of Nevada fails WP:POLOUTCOMES Chetsford ( talk) 06:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. I will protect this and a few other capitalizations. DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Amina oyagbola

Amina oyagbola (  | 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 this BLP has been previously created and deleted under a diff title at Amina Oyagbola but since this one cites some ref and is not very promotional so instead of speedy, I would go with AfD.

I would say none of the posts/offices the subject has held are notable on their own. she has some trivial coverage in independent RS but I could not locate any in-depth coverage so apparently the subject does not appear to meet GNG... Saqib ( talk) 05:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Ok so I didn't knew about that AfD.. I wonder why Amina Oyagbola does not mention about AfD closing. So in this case. Speedy delete this one and salt it. Thanks to The Mighty Glen for saving time of others. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Badland Brawl

Badland Brawl (  | 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 put this up as a PROD, which was rejected by the original article creator after the original creator added a couple of YouTube videos as supposed references. It still fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. YouTube videos reviewing a product (one of which has only 15 total views as of this writing) don't impart notability. As I said in the original prod: "No reliable independent evidence of significant notability among thousands of iOS games. Routine product reviews alone rarely constitute notability. Also, quack." 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco ( talk) 05:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - The creator has tried VERY hard to push notablity when it doesn't exist. Article is actually well written, so I hope they stick around, but iOS freemium games rarely are notable, and this is no exception (Although the touch arcade reference is good.). Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - The promotional lead could be cleaned up, but I'm not finding any reliable sources and most of the article is a game guide. ZettaComposer ( talk) 12:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Binju Ali

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

Actors 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:ACTORS.. also fails GNG.. Saqib ( talk) 04:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sheba.xyz

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

This is basically advertising of non notable new business. It fails the substance of WP:NCORP criterion. Once you strip that single so-called "award" you're left with speedy spam material – Ammarpad ( talk) 04:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for looking into the article. If you strip the notable part of anything, that would not be notable any more. So you are correct on your point, as you striped the National Information and Communication Technology Awards from the article and the importance goes down to zero.
The company own the National ICT award in 2017, please check the related wiki article about the event and their name is listed there. Along with that check the news and article on Sheba.xyz by yourself and then decide if it was right to add a deletion tag on the article. Please read the references mentioned on the article and by searching on the web. I request you please remove the tag as it does not fit on 'reason' you mentioned on your request for deletion.-- Nasir Khan Saikat ( talk) 04:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirkhan ( talk • contribs) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hinduism in Turkey

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

No indication of notability, previous PROD was removed without reason by a user whose only edits are two removals or PROD tags. Such a small community is unlikely to be notable. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hinduism in Turkmenistan

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

None of the sources indicate notability. Probably not a notable topic due to community's small size. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hinduism in Uzbekistan

Hinduism in Uzbekistan (  | 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 in-depth coverage, sources appear to be minor mentions in articles talking about something else; I doubt such a small community has coverage indicating notability. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the SYNTH and blatant religious bigotry evident from the assumption that all Indians are Hindus or all Hindus are Indian is also a problem on that page. There are millions of Christians in India akd lots of Muslims too. Someone went through and created hinduism stubs and redirects for every country and territory on earth. Legacypac ( talk) 08:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Mareroo

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

Genames calls it an unverified populated place, and I couldn't verify it either. Coords land on the mouth of a dry riverbed, with one building not too far off, and that's it. GHits are thrown off by someone with a similar name, but when you exclude him, yes, it's all clickbait. Mangoe ( talk) 03:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Aleem Iqbal (Lord Aleem)

Aleem Iqbal (Lord Aleem) (  | 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 any notability. Sure he has a few newspaper mentions but not for anything that amounts to notability. He runs a rental car business and had one of them damaged. He suffered some verbal racial abuse. He auditioned for a role on Top Gear. He is apparently rich. None of those is anything like notability. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   14:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
(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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 13:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Arjun Babuta

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

Junior champions don't meet WP:NSPORTS, and he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 01:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rob Hayter

Rob Hayter (  | 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 stunt performer and bit part actor, not referenced well enough to make him includable yet. Actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- if he doesn't have a strong distinction such as an Oscar or Emmy or CSA nomination, then the notability test he has to pass is not "has had roles", but "has received a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage for the having of roles". But for sourcing, what we have here is a directory listing in Turner Classic Movies's IMDb substitute -- not a notability-assisting source, for the same reason that the real IMDb isn't -- and one newspaper article that's substantively enough about him to start counting for something. But it takes several pieces of reliable source coverage, not just one, before a person has enough reliable source coverage to pass GNG. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability jump to another level, but nothing here is enough in and of itself yet. Bearcat ( talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Kinu t/ c 00:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Nikki Novak

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

Semi-advertorial WP:BLP of an actress notable primarily as the host of a talk show on a web video platform, which is referenced solely to her IMDb profile with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all. As always, having an IMDb profile is not an automatic free pass into Wikipedia in and of itself -- a person has to receive media coverage, not just have a profile in a directory of every person who works in film or television at all, to clear our notability standards. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Adam9007 ( talk) 01:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marin Software

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

Unremarkable company advertising tagged Legacypac ( talk) 20:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Gravity Falls episodes#Season 1 (2012–2013). Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Land Before Swine

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

Sources are SoundCloud, Tumblr, etc., most of the article is copy pasted from [41], and there's no indication that this episode in particular is notable for any reason; it seems to fail the GNG. XenonNSMB ( talk, contribs) 22:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 02:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement. Bearcat ( talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gillian Jerome

Gillian Jerome (  | 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, with some advertorial edges to it, of a writer whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as pieces of her own writing about other things and/or the self-published websites of professional colleagues and an organization she's directly affiliated with -- and it also significantly pads out its sourcing by coatracking and referencing highly digressionary content about her husband and the organization, as well as non-notable public readings in her own home town and a section that, until I poleaxed it, listed and "referenced" every single work by some other writer that Jerome ever reviewed for a literary journal. As always, however, you don't demonstrate a writer as notable by referencing the article to sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things -- you demonstrate a writer as notable by referencing the article to sources in which she's the subject of content written by other people.
Of the 51 footnotes here, I count literally just three that actually represent reliable source media outlets that are fully independent of Jerome herself -- but of those three, one just namechecks her existence a single time as the provider of a statistic in an article that's in no way about her otherwise, one represents a book review in her local alt-weekly, and the third is about her winning a literary award on the second tier of notability: notable enough to be mentioned in an article that's already well-sourced, but not notable enough to bestow the writer's notability all by itself if it's the only properly sourced notability claim the writer actually has.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find the correct kind of sourcing to write and reference an article about Jerome properly -- but the sourcing here isn't remotely acceptable, and the article body doesn't say anything about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced much, much better than this. I'm also okay with draftifying per Shalor's request below. Bearcat ( talk) 22:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Hi! If possible, can this be transferred back into the student's userspace if this is deleted via AfD so they can work on the issues you've brought up here? I'll work with them on the article while it's live, of course. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 13:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure, that would be entirely acceptable as well. I've added support for that to my original statement. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Contributors can copy the text from the edit page and work on the text in order to re-submit it, if they gather enough evidence for notability. Thus far, this is one of the relatively rare instances of a text with obviously lots of good work (I try not to use the term "work of love") in it, about a subject that, however, try as the contributors might, has not yet established WP:GNG, nor does it meet WP:ARTIST. Here's hoping. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Hi! Just wanted to make a quick mention that I've made mention of this at Women in Red to see if they can help with the tone and sourcing, along with the work the student is doing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for now. What's the urgency on deletion? This being part of a student project, and currently being edited by several people trying to bring it up to code, It won't hurt to wait on this. Wikipedia isn't going to be damaged if we allow the student, instructor, and other editors a little time to get this up to at least a basic framework of what it should be. — Maile ( talk) 23:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If this AfD nomination acts as a wake up call to whomever is interested in working on the article (and establishing notability), then that would be a most welcome outcome, too. Every AfD nomination is presumably submitted on good faith and under house rules. "What's the urgency," you ask? And "where is the harm"? I'm sure you mean well but those questions are a bit surprising (especially coming from an administrator). This is a community of volunteers, taking off time to do encyclopaedic work; keeping Wikipedia clean is part of the work. In my view, if the interested editors do not make haste, the deletion could go through because "temporarily unworthy" articles are not allowed in Wikipedia. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
But needs willing eyes to check for inaccuracy, sloppy cut-and-paste, etc - see talk page. And it appears that an instructor has set a 2,000 word target for the students' contributions: just the way to encourage bloated writing, addition of irrelevances, stretching of sources, etc. Not helpful. Pam D 09:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
A literary award is not an automatic GNG pass in and of itself — it's the depth and volume and quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support a notability claim, not the claim itself, that determines whether GNG is passed or not. The ReLit Award is, in reality, an award whose reliable source coverage is spotty at best: sometimes you can find enough sourcing to get a ReLit winner or nominee over GNG, and sometimes you can't. So it's a second-tier literary award for the purposes of WP:AUTHOR: notable enough to count if the article can be well-sourced, but not "inherently" notable enough to count as a guarantee of a Wikipedia article without regard to sourceability issues. Bearcat ( talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Update. The WikEd consultant has worked with the creator to improve the article — while it does still need some more work before it could be assessed as a good article, there are enough properly reliable sources now to cover off the reason why I listed this for AFD in the first place. Accordingly, I'm withdrawing this nomination and just tagging the article for maintenance. Bearcat ( talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Plastic Surgery & Plastic Doctor & Plastic Hospital Office for Barbie Version

Plastic Surgery & Plastic Doctor & Plastic Hospital Office for Barbie Version (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ultimately WP:NOTNEWS. Merely the app version of Elsagate. There are many different apps and Flash games like this, and this was just a routine controversy. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marlon Bundo (disambiguation)

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

The page refers to only a single item: a rabbit, and the two books that have been written about the rabbit. Since the two books about the rabbit are already widely discussed in the rabbit's article, this disambiguation is unnecessary. BarbadosKen ( talk) 00:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marcel Hatch

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate in a political party leadership election. This is not a claim of notability that gives a person an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL -- if a person doesn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they have to win the leadership, not just run in the convention and lose, to be deemed notable as a politician. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (a piece of his own writing about something else, and the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations), and the only exception is an opinion column about something else which merely happens to briefly glance on Hatch's existence as a digression from the main topic, not a source about Hatch. Which means that none of these sources count as evidence of notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to John Walker (programmer). J04n( talk page) 16:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The Digital Imprimatur

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards on notability. The subject warrants nothing more than a sentence at John Walker (programmer). Perrythwi ( talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 14:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Steve Papermaster

Steve Papermaster (  | 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 CEO of a company that does not exist on Wikipedia. Best source found was this, but others are interviews and other primary source stuff, or mere mentions. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NPERSON/ WP:GNG. Was previously PRODded in 2015 but removed by DGG. talk to !dave 08:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

NU NRG

AfDs for this article:
NU NRG (  | 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 all 12 points of WP:BAND. Has been tagged for lack of sources for 6 years, and my own searching failed to come up with anything. Lots of listings on music services and the like, but nothing that qualifies as a WP:RS. That fact that they have not existed as a band for 13 years, while not in itself a problem ( WP:NTEMP), means it is unlikely that any future coverage will emerge.

One of the members of the band, Andrea Ribeca, was just the subject of a deletion review, but that's not really germane to the band's notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies". Google Books. Retrieved 2018-04-12.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_4&oldid=1142617136"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 April 5 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. There were a number of users arguing to keep, but most of them presented no policy-based arguments or sources. The one source that looked reasonable, [1] was discussed and found to be insufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Amb Jogi

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

The subject does not appear to meet GNG.. he has got some trivial coverage from independent reliable sources such as here and here but nothing significant. The article contains OR. while language isn't relevant to our notability criteria at all but one should expect a bio on a relevant language edition of WP however in this casen no article in Urdu or even Sindhi WP.. I tried WP:BEFORE this nomination, but was unsuccessful, unfortunately. Saqib ( talk) 17:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, There are sufficient references to be kept. Jogi 007 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. -- Saqib ( talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
SLF page 11 Music & [2], Play it here & Listen . Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 22:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib:, Dear, SEe this one] .... Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 22:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You need to see WP:SOURCES which defines what count as a reliable source. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Arif80s: It would be better if you establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. -- Saqib ( talk) 08:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Dear Saqib please [ [3]] [ [4]] & [ [5]]-- Arif80s ( talk) 10:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You've provided links to his performances, not coverage which discusses him. Trivial mention in Dawn. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Dear Saqib you are not a judge, mind it. Amb Jogi is a folk performer of Sindh. If you don't know about Amb Jogi, it is question mark of your ability to judge these type of personalities. Arif80s ( talk) 11:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Arif80s: You know you're making personal remarks. -- Saqib ( talk) 11:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: Wikipedia is free encyclopedia, please don't take it personally. My above remarks is very reasonable. Arif80s ( talk) 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
No I don't think your remarks were justified. Our policy says comment on content, not on the contributor. -- Saqib ( talk) 12:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Our policy says You are claiming that Wikipedia is your property🤔. Please clarify your position? Arif80s ( talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You're needlessly nitpicking on my use of words is pretty lame mate. Don't you have anything relevant to the topic to talk about?-- Saqib ( talk) 03:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Who are you Mr. @ Saqib:? please clear your position in the light of your above comments. Arif80s ( talk) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You should assume good faith @ Arif80s:.. I said "our policy say"s not "my policy says" and the former one is not prohibited either. See this. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Existence ≠ Notability.. with a few exceptions., if someone has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, it is presumed to be not suitable for a stand-alone article on WP. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atlantic306: This is not a national TV channel coverage. And the coverage in RS is passing mentions, nothing in-depth. -- Saqib ( talk) 19:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
This reliable source here confirms he has appeared on Pakistan Television Corporation, the youtube video is of something different Atlantic306 ( talk) 09:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atlantic306: I think you misinterpreted. Dawn price says "the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation arranged a benefit concert in Ms Shaikh’s honour at the Hyderabad station of the PBC" so it does not passes criteria 12 of WP:NMUSIC.. criteria 12 says "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." whereas in this case the subject merely performed and was not a featured subject. Further, the programme was on-aired on Hyderabad station of PBC, not nationwide. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
And, 306, you are back with your regular nonsense. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
See WP:NPA, passing a SNG criterion is not nonsense as the article refers to a different television production than the concert. Your comments at AFD are becoming abusive so please consider that bad attitude editors ruin AFD for many good faith contributors Atlantic306 ( talk) 08:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atlantic306: Please provide the TV-related passage here. -- Saqib ( talk) 08:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The performance section mentions programmes made in Dubai, will look for sources to confirm it later, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 09:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atlantic306: I thought you was referring to Dawn ref which you provided above. Well if we speak of content in the article, I would say obviously made up, and no verification. On a related note, K.T.N TV is not a national TV channel and performing somewhere in a concert in Dubai is not significant. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete clearly not enough to meet GNG; the one reference is fairly trivial and refers to him as "Ustad Amb Jogi". The only additional content I find is a few Youtube videos by the subject. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Insufficient sourcing to establish notability, and I can't find anything better. This may be a search bubble issue (I'm not going to find things that require Hindi search terms) but unless some of the defenders above can provide such sources, they have to be treated as nonexistent. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per lack of references to establish any kind of notability. London Hall ( talk) 19:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails our guidelines for musicians, despite the "rare talent" and other things claimed by his sock army rather suspiciously enthusiastic group of supporters. We're a bit wary here of claims that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, as many articles kept on those grounds are just deleted a few months later when the promised sources (shockingly!) never show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thank you for the massive improvements to the article! ansh 666 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Nissan Maru

Nissan Maru (  | 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 WWII-era Japanese merchant ship. Originally tagged A1 by Spasage but doesn't qualify for that. ansh 666 23:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Combined Fleet is the most authoritative website on the Imperial Japanese Navy and has been cited in books considered RS google books, and is managed by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, who co-wrote a respected history of the Battle of Midway. Kges1901 ( talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While it's clear that he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, that is irrelevant if he can meet the WP:GNG. There is no clear consensus on this point. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Conor Masterson

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

Nothing has changed since the first AfD notability-wise. Still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and all that. Tagged G4 by JMHamo, but it doesn't qualify. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm okay with draftification, if it comes to that. ansh 666 00:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 05:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 12:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
No reason to salt if it's deleted, this is only the second deletion and it's only because of his contested sudden rise in notability. SportingFlyer talk 04:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Youth Journalism International

Youth Journalism International (  | 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's creator and biggest contributor has a conflict of interest bias against the article and is abusing multiple accounts. The main user (now blocked) can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiernanmc. They seem to edit articles relating to Youth Journalism International's founder, Steve Collins (journalist) (also being nominated for deletion), and other related pages. It appears that the following users are evading the block put in place for the main user:

  • 134.181.107.236
  • 2604:6000:9802:5100:857:c3c2:d088:4cd0 (when 134.181.107.236 was reverted this one popped up and began editing Youth Journalism International)

The original deletion proposal had the following:

According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Violates WP:DEL-CONTENT (not enough citations); goes against WP:ATD-M (no suitable merge location); fails WP:SIGCOV (all 5 tenants violated); fails WP:SUSTAINED (sustained coverage not proved); supports WP:SPIP (look at citations); supports WP:NEWSEVENT (used news events to create faulty notability); I could go on... but perhaps most importantly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on its majority of edits. CamdenEric ( talk) 14:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Neither the present nomination nor the previous nomination seem to include any actual valid reasons for deletion, which is because there aren't any. This organization clearly satisfies WP:GNG. There's the Hartford Courant article already cited. Also the Daily Iowan and profile at the Cato Institute by Nat Hentoff. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 15:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Those two sources contain merely mere mentions, they make no commentary on the organisation. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
      • You know what, Mr. Smokey, that's just not true. For instance, here's just one excerpt from the Hentoff source: Which is why I was delighted to discover the global nonprofit Youth Journalism International (YJI), headquartered in West Hartford, Connecticut. It mentors young people in their teens and 20s from around the world in the art and ethics of journalism. The husband and wife team of Steve Collins and Jackie Majerus started YJI in 1994 for students interested in pursuing a career in journalism. Slowly, this small, informal group grew to include students from other states and, eventually, started to receive inquiries from students in foreign countries. At the time, Steve and Jackie were both working full-time as reporters for the Bristol (Ct.) Press. That sure looks like more than a "mere mention" as you would disingenuously have it. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A worthy organisation, sure, but nobody has really paid focused attention to it. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Absolutely satisfies WP:GNG. CamdenEric is a single-purpose user who only exists to keep actor Stephen Collins at a high profile. Now that the founder of this org, Steve Collins, has been removed from Wikipedia, as per his nom, this page likely doesn't concern him anymore. 73.5.132.206 ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a strange duck. From what I can see, an SPA supporting actor Stephen Collins and using his 7th Heaven character's name is battling an SPA that keeps popping up with different IP addresses who is focused on promoting journalist Stephen Collins. Nonetheless, I'm voting based on the merits of the article, not any assumed biases in the voting and nomination process. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Assumed biases towards the page are irrelevant for this discussion. From my perspective, the Organization hasn't received enough coverage to be relevant for Wikipedia. However, I will change my mind, if someone can provide some decent sources. Wikitigresito ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete’’’ I created an account with the intent of trying to fix the entry but I can’t find any sources not already listed. This is not much of en entry and it needs signifant work to even make it relevant. Edmaasman ( talk) 18:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Beverly de Nance

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

While, according to the CFSC article, she and her partner did win two bronze medals back in the 1950s, that does not qualify as notability as per WP:SKATER. Nothing turned up in searches regarding her either, so she doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Micropoint

Micropoint (  | 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 claim to notability and no reliable sources can be found. KingAnd God 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. While not an area I am familiar with, given this is a poorly attended AFD and I read French, I took a look at the sourcing in the French wikipedia article. Two of the sources wouldn't load for me, but otherwise *collectively* they didn't pass our en.wp standards for an article. I wouldn't go as far as KingAndGod and say *none* of the sources are relevant to GNG, but taken collectively we do need multiple reliable independent sources that are more than passing mentions and I am not seeing that. Martinp ( talk) 19:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Self-written spam for non-notable, repeated attempts, likely SP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Chandan Saxena

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

Appears to be a not notable musician. The two sources already in the article are the only things I could find. One is a blog and the other looks like it's just a photo gallery. The Living Limitless things appears to be... a thing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Chandan Saxena. Possible he was a set musician or something. GMG talk 19:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Josip Vujčić. MBisanz talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Where the Penguins Fly

Where the Penguins Fly (  | 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 non-notable film. I could find only one article online which discusses the film in any detail ( [12](in Croatian)), published while the film was still in production. I could not find any reviews (or any info about its reception), nor evidence the film had a theatrical release. It does not meet WP:NFOE. GregorB ( talk) 18:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I removed that PROD as highly inappropriate. It is reasonable target for merger from here. Deleting it while this AFD under discussion undermines reasonable consideration. Inappropriate like it is to delete substantial content from any article at AFD, or just before nominating for AFD. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Doncram: Removing the prod certainly was your prerogative, but it's just dragging the procedure for no substantial reason. Prod expires after seven days, thus it would be deleted after this AfD is closed. I was under impression that merge votes here were based more on the fact that the director's article exists, than on merits of notability and sourcing: the two of us, native speakers found nothing. We're dealing with a common WP:WALLEDGARDEN COI situation, as can be easily evidenced by username of Jvujcic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No such user ( talk) 07:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I'd volunteer to do the merge into Josip Vujčić should that be the outcome of this discussion, but frankly I don't see any mergeable content. If that is indeed the case, then Doncram's point is moot. GregorB ( talk) 12:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Not moot. Whether it is a redirect to that article, with bare mention of this film, or a larger merge, doesn't matter. It still is unhelpful to delete the merger/redirect target proposed, when AFD about this film article is going on. About PROD expiring after 7 days, I am not sure about that (about whether they are sometimes ended sooner i dunno), but it conceivably could end before this AFD is done. AFDs often run for more than a week.
It certainly seems argumentative to PROD the director/writer article, which I would think is almost certainly more central, more notable than just one of their works, while full-blown AFD is going on about the work. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You have a point - indeed, it is better not to interfere with the process in this way, even if the end result should turn out to be the same. GregorB ( talk) 21:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sathiya

Sathiya (  | 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 film created by a sock with no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Eena Meena Deeka (TV series)

Eena Meena Deeka (TV 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)

Indian television shows are seldom notable, largely due to lack of reliable media coverage. This is unfortunately one of them, further worsened by the fact that there are no sources in the article. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

FideliTrade Incorporated

FideliTrade Incorporated (  | 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 company lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are mainly listings or other items that do not meet WP:RS. reddogsix ( talk) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 01:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete a respectable business, but none of the sources are really independent. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While I couldn't check all sources (paywalls etc), I concur with both remarks by reddogsix. There's unfortunately a lot of people who believe an avalanche of in-passing mentions confer notability and provide enough to write an article, and indeed sometimes the impression such sourcing gives of apparent depth makes such articles survive. However, we really don't have enough to write a solid, meaty, independent article here. Given the issues of many non-notable businesses trying to promotionally get articles in wikipedia (note, I am not saying that was the situation here), we do need to be reasonably strict and consistent on this, at least where someone starts the discussion. Martinp ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

KnightsBridge Foreign Exchange

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

Previously PRODed by User:Robert McClenon. I concur with their rationale: "Not a notable corporation; see corporate notability. Promotional in tone." SmartSE ( talk) 18:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sheldon Herzig

Sheldon Herzig (  | 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. Cannot find any substantial coverage of him in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I disagree. Many notable academic journals and conferences have been mentioned, as well as established academic universities and philanthropic endeavors. Please reply on my talk page, as I have completely redone this page and believe it provides more than substantial evidence to Dr. Herzig's notability. BlakeRM ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Has not received SIGCOV in RS. I also do not think the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC, though they hold the post of Clinician Teacher at the Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, and have authored a number of papers in ophthalmology journals. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 01:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hopelessly promotional. For example I checked out the source provided for the statement, "Herzig has been recognized as a leader in the use of laser technologies in refractive surgery", and found that all that it said was that he had been "honoured" by a hospital staff association for unstated reasons along with dozens of other people. The rest of the article is written in the same vein. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doctors are typically not notable unless they are recognized as particularly significant or innovative in their specialty (i.e. WP:NACADEMIC); don't see that here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Blatant Doom Trip

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

There don't appear to be multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage or indeed anything else to satisfy WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Hzh ( talk) 12:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - A tribute to a notable band featuring other notable bands, but the album itself has attracted little notice. It has a fairly substantial review at AllMusic and a mention at Consequence of Sound [13]. Those might be enough for WP:NALBUM #1 but I consider that to be a bit of a stretch. Otherwise the album's only notice has been in a few fan blogs. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The Consequence of Sound article only gives a passing mention to the album, so it does not count towards establishing notability. I haven't been able to find multiple sources beyond those that merely give trivial mentions, simple listing, or blogs. Hzh ( talk) 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Metafest

Metafest (  | 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 festival, no coverage to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Douglas Engelbart. Up to editors to determine what if anything to merge. Sandstein 16:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Purple Numbers

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No independent sources cired. Google search for "Purple Numbers + HTML" gives scarce results Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, I did find a reasonable source [1] but still just worth a merge/redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I would not call a brief mention among hundreds of wikis "a reasonable source". 14A (128)
The idea is fringe and will hardly ever be used. Just imagine the readability of this page littered with "purple numbers" at the end of every paragraph (i.e., basically each sentence) like this: 14B (129)
I don't think this looks nice, see here for a real example. 14C (130)
Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, by reasonable source, I didn't mean that's enough to justify a stand-alone article. But, as I said, redirects are WP:CHEAP. It doesn't take much to justify a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Agree; a redirect could have been a good option. But what about WP:UNDUE to merge into his bio? I do not see much sources about Engelbart which speak about purple numbers. If there aint then we shouldnt. What's more, in this article I do not see reliable third-party refs which discuss he subject in any detail, only a bunch of enthusiasts. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Brothers Matias

Brothers Matias (  | 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 three young brothers who publish a lot of on Wattpad and Youtube but do not appear to have much real notability. Article almost entirely written by one editor, who has edited almost nothing else and may have COI. Pam D 18:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. If anyone really does want to merge the content here let me know. Hut 8.5 21:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

John James (American politician)

John James (American 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)

Simply running for office is not a notable event in itself. This individual is not particularly notable and the sources used include his own website. Cssiitcic ( talk) 17:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. As usual, no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat — but nothing stated or sourced here has demonstrated that he's already eligible to have an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If James wins the Republican nomination in the August Primary, that might lead to him becoming notable in the build-up to the general election, in some cases candidate for senate do become notable for such. However at present he is not notable, and with Michigan also having a gubanatorial race this year and the senate race involving an incumbent, it is open to question if there will be enough coverage that James could become notable for anything short of winning. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not yet notable, does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 21:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge / redirect to article on election. A senate race is notable. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bearcat and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian ( talk) 01:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gurinder Singh Mann

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

This article is a WP:COATRACK for sexual assault allegations that have never achieved more than passing coverage. More substantial discussion hasn't happened and almost certainly won't happen because the subject fails WP:PROF. The "Global Institute for Sikh Studies" appears to be a one-man website. Guy ( Help!) 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In the humanities, we judge by books. Two books published by Oxford University Press is sufficient for anyones's notability. A major contributor to standard subject encyclopedia adds to it. Full professor at a major US research university confirms it. Notability depends on the publications, not the website. How to deal with the problematic material is another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete. Fails WP:PROF. VickSPaul1 ( talk) 14:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Global Institute of Sikh Studies is a one man show. Other Professors also have books published by Oxford University Press but are not given wikipedia pages and their pages are deleted. § reply
find me a person with two books published by OUP that has been deleted for reason of not meeting WP:PROF. Possibly some may have been deleted, but for promotionalism or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable independent sources. If his books are significant there must be reviews. Happy to reconaider if some sources are put forward. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't know where this "I'm not seeing any coverage" stuff is coming from; clearly, those editors are not looking in the right places. I just added nine published book reviews of four of his books as sources to the article [updated later: 12 reviews of 6 books]. That's enough for a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. His (former) named chair also gives him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. As with some other recent cases, the sexual harassment case is not notable in itself, but needs to be mentioned as a significant aspect of the life of a subject who is notable for other reasons. But the subject should be distinguished from a different person also named Gurinder Singh Mann, director of the Sikh Museum Project in England [15] and author of two more books (Sri Dasam Granth: Questions and Answers, and The Granth of Guru Gobind Singh: Essays, Lectures and Translations). — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 for having held a named chair, and passes WP:AUTHOR as well. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Howard Griffin Gallery

Howard Griffin Gallery (  | 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 probably did not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP even before they were revised, and surely does not now that they have been. Several of the artists who have shown there are notable, and several have received coverage of their shows; but selling a notable product does not necessarily make the seller notable (a car salesman does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car). I have not found any of the substantial in-depth coverage of the gallery itself that would allow us either to keep this or to write an article on the topic. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Champion Shave

Champion Shave (  | 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 razor company. Article fails WP:NCORP as the only coverage of the company that exisits is trival, concerned only with Usain Bolt's finances, or are press releases (lots of PR Newswire seen when conducting a before check). Note that the company does not inherit notability ( WP:NOTINHERITED) simply due to the fact that it has a famous founder or famous spokespeople. Nothing indicates why the company is unique among razor companies, nor why it is significant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ellen Roth Deutsch

AfDs for this article:
Ellen Roth Deutsch (  | 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 seem to find any coverage in independent, reliable media that would convince me that Deutsch is a notable artist. As far as I can tell, she has had one solo-exhibition at the ARC gallery, which has an interesting history, but isn't sufficient to support a claim per WP:NARTIST, which requires either a significant exhibition, significant critical attention. Representation in the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums is also not applicable. A group exhibit in the Noyes Art Gallery is not a significant exhibition either. Vexations ( talk) 16:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A rename/redirect/merge has been proposed late in this discussion, with no subsequent discussion. This "Keep" should not be considered a factor against taking one of those actions if a consensus can be reached to do so on the article talk page or other discussion venue. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dave Weasel

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

Subject previously deleted at AfD, still appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. I am unable to find significant in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. The one incident that did garner some very limited coverage appears to have been considered and discarded in the previous AfD. He has made it onto some charts since then so I am not calling for a G4 speedy here. But I am not seeing a real claim to notability. Am I missing something? Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - It's not just any chart, he's number one on the official Billboard comedy chart which is backed by Nielsen SoundScan, which factors in all retail stores, proving he has the top-selling comedy album in the world at the moment. This certainly proves notability. It is also sourced and referenced that he also had the top viewed and shared satire news stories of 2016.-- YeahImadethis ( talk) 21:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
As far as I know the only area where charts are a factor in ringing the WP:N bell is for music. We require significant and in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It also says "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." he has over half a million followers on his "verified" twitter account, though it is not sourced on this page. Another consideration is "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." and being the top selling current comedian in the world should count as prolific and significant, and his news satire stories being shared/viewed that much and the coverage on it should be unique. Apologies for the length. -- YeahImadethis ( talk) 22:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The number of followers that a person has on social media is irrelevant to notability or lack thereof. To count as fulfilling the "large fan base or significant cult following" criterion, a claim has to be reliably sourceable to evidence of real-world impact (e.g. a fan club organizing a full-on "fans of Dave Weasel" convention attended by hundreds or thousands of people from all over the world) — how many people clicked "like" on a piece of user-generated content has nothing to do with it. And every single person who exists at all could always claim that their contributions in their field were "unique", by simple virtue of the fact that their contributions were theirs instead of somebody else's, so simply listing the things a person did does not satisfy that criterion either — that criterion is passed by reliable source coverage analyzing the ways in which the person's contributions were innovative and influential on people who came after them, not by simply listing his workography and deeming it inherently "unique" just because it's his. Bearcat ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That is fair, you are correct. Comedians should be held to their own standard seperate from actors and other public figures as they are more like musicians in that they rely on ticket, album, stream sales for their craft. Just a thought. -- YeahImadethis ( talk) 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but flag for improvement. Topping the comedy albums chart on Billboard certainly is a credible notability claim for a comedian — strafing the bottom edges of the chart for a week or two probably wouldn't be, but reaching #1 certainly demonstrates a significant following — but the article does still need to be referenced better than it is right now, to more evidence of reliable source coverage about him, supporting more content than just stating that "he exists, the end", before it can be considered a good article. Bearcat ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - #1 Billboard Comedy album (and verified) is a very strong indicator of notability. Readers will want encyclopedic information about this topic. Currently we don't do much of that, and it may not be possible yet, but there is a little bit of useful, verified information which is better than nothing, therefore Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and redirect to I'm 30. There's very little coverage on Weasel, certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. If he were a business person known for working at only one notable company, the consensus would be to include his info in that company article. In this case the album has almost no coverage either, but did hit #1 on the Billboard Comedy chart. Also interesting that he did a fake article for his fake paper, which apparently went quite viral, but here's still no corresponding profile coverage of him or the paper. I found this archive btw - which must be the deleted article, and also has limited sources. [ [17]] Since WP:TOOSOON also comes to mind, this is better off as an album article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Advok8.in

Advok8.in (  | 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 coverage in reliable sources at all. All the coverage comes from either advertisements/paid advertisements, or press release. Lacks significant coverage; fails notability guidelines for organizations and companies, as well as general notability criteria.

All the sources provided within the article are clearly paid advertisements for the company's app. Three of which are identical to each-other upto every single word. The "Sarita Magazine" source has a different title, but again the content is identical to the rest of the three, making 4 identical articles. I couldnt read one source, as it was neither in English, nor in Hindi. The launchstory.in is different, but i am not sure about its reliability; looks highly doubtful. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

 Update: After nomination, the creator has removed the paid articles from sources. Here is the previous version. Also, one doesnt need to be familiar with hindi language, or Devanagari script; the titles of sources in reflist/references are exactly the same. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
 Note: For future records, the author tried to speedy delete the article under G7. special:diff/835395676 —usernamekiran (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discourse regarding the article's tone and sources can continue on its talk page if desired. North America 1000 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Green Tomato Cars

Green Tomato Cars (  | 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 minicab firm. Notability not demonstrated. Most of the refs are trade papers and the like. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not promotional, I've just cleaned it up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Ritchie333:--If the edits, executed by you, were your definition of cleanup, well....... ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
And, this was a good-enough tagging. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Ritchies massive improvements as well as the abundance of sources on Google. – Davey2010 Talk 16:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Trade press sources are necessary for some types of topic as they provide a good insider perspective on technical issues. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Pure advertising. The contents of the article is exactly what they would use as a press release, brand names and all. Juudging by the advertorials and well-managed references, they have quite enough disguised press releases in circulation without our adding to them. It wouldn't matter how notable the firm might be --not that I trust the refs to be objective enough to show it-- because Not Advertising is one of our basic principles. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Since I (and El Cid) cleaned the article up (see the stats), are you suggesting we don’t know how to write a neutral encyclopedia article? I’d be interested to know what sort of press release would talk about a product recall leading to financial problems. And last time I looked, WP:N is still a thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I judge by the state of the article. Articles I've written or rewritten have been deleted also. I agree that there is one RS about financial problems that might be more than a notice. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Without minimally under-emphasizing your immense content-creation/upgradation-skills, which is surely justified by the numerous GAs etc. developed by you (to be fair, I've only one and that speaks volumes....), going by your edits at this article, I guess the answer about neutral and non-promotional prose will be no.And, I guess that's got to do something with the screening of PR stuff, business-website-spam-mentions etc. from reliable sources. ~ Winged Blades Godric 06:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't think you have - you've just removed the sources you don't like - and have addressed your concerns on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Newroderick895 16:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kladdkaka

Kladdkaka (  | 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 with just one source. Needs to be restarted. Newroderick895 15:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It has its own day?? Truly, I have wasted my life living outside of Sweden. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
6 November. Which is also the day we eat this. (Though to be honest, Sweden in November requires a lot of chocolate - it's grim.)-- bonadea contributions talk 19:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's two basic arguments in play here.

The first is whether some of the sources, specifically Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are WP:RS. I don't know the full history of WP:VG/S, i.e. is it just an essay, or real policy, but those two sources are listed there and it seems like a cogent analysis of the source space, so I'm going to accept that they're both WP:RS.

The second is whether the actual cited references are really indicative of WP:N, or if they're just recycled press releases. I can't discern any consensus on that point.

I don't know if this should be closed as keep or no consensus. Given that they're effectively the same thing, however, I'm not to going sweat it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

AdvertCity

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

This article has referenciness, but they are not reliable, independent, secondary sources, and Google doesn't offer much hope of replacements that are. Fails to establish notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the publisher (i.e. going beyond listings and recycled press releases). Guy ( Help!) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Destructoid are blogs and not sufficient to establish notability. Guy ( Help!) 08:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
JzG: Unfortunately the opinion you are presenting is not supported by consensus. Whether a source's container is a blog-type news site, a print magazine, a podcast or a town crier, what matters is journalistic/editorial oversight. You can refer to WP:VG/S to see existing consensus in the evaluation of industry-specific sources -- Rock, Paper, Shotgun isn't just some blog shite and has been the subject of lengthy discussions resulting in consensus for its general appropriateness; on the other hand discussions about Destructoid resulted in a more case-by-case careful approach, requiring that individual authors be evaluted separately when necessary, however unfortunately in this case the author Alasdair Duncan (not Alasdair Duncan, not the 60-year-old actor, not the Je Zaum artist) shares a name (surprisingly, at least to me!) with other people having coverage online, complicating research. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It's not an opinion, it's what we say about them in our articles! That's why I linked them. Now, you may mean that "consensus" among fans of games is to ignore WP:RS and declare them reliable anyway, and that is possibly true, we have the same problem in a number of areas. Guy ( Help!) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Although I said this on your WP:RSN post, I'll say it here, too: While, yes, they do post in blog format, Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are extremely prominent; they have good reputations in the industry, they exert editorial control and basic fact-checking and so on. I wouldn't cite them for things outside of the narrow field of game reviewing (since that's their reputation and the expertise of their staff), but within that field I think it's absurd to suggest that they couldn't at least be cited for the "significant commentary" that WP:NVIDEOGAMES requires. As far as games commentary goes, they're top-tier sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • keep - Contrary to your comment about "recycled press releases" - there has never even been a press release made about this game. When I have edited this page in the past I have always made sure to quote only legitimate review sites, and I have previously verified all the references here and they all looked fine to me at the time. Rock paper shotgun have covered the game on two separate occasions; for an indie game you can't expect much more than that these days. Slow Riot ( talk) 07:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Slow Riot ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply
  • Delete - The article has been WP:BOMBARDed with sources, but from an in depth read, they are all essentially the same news release about how the game's on Kickstarter. The nominator is highly incorrect in his assertion that those sites are not reliable sources, see WP:VG/S, but it lacks WP:SUSTAINED. In terms of post release critique there is very little, and the article uses weasel words to cast it in a better light, such as using user reviews, which shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article. The game lacks notability and does suffer from recycling of similar sources. Yes, it is hard for an indie game to get on Wikipedia, but that's kind of the point. Wikipedia is not a directory of indie games, if your game doesn't get on Wikipedia that doesn't mean it sucks. Just that it didn't pick up notability from the media. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There's a lot of bad sources here, and the article needs serious cleanup, but Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun trivially pass the bare minimum of "significant commentary" required for WP:NVIDEOGAMES. I don't feel that the fact that they're published in a blog format is sufficient to disqualify them; their staff are almost all established professionals in the field (granted that the reputation of both outlets is sufficient that being hired by one can turn someone into an established professional in the field), they have basic editorial controls, and they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would still be cautious about using them for other things, but I think it's absurd to suggest that they're not usable for uncontroversal "significant commentary" in a direct game review, at a bare minimum, since they have a strong reputation there. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep there are several bad references which can be removed, which I would be happy to help with if the article is kept (for example there is no need to mention, let along include a source about a lack of metacritic score). There are just enough usable references left to establish notability. ZettaComposer ( talk) 12:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In support of the comments about the sources being poor: The Rock, Paper, Shotgun references are simple announcements. If these are the best sources available, which seems to be the conclusion at the RSN discussion, then the article is pure WP:SOAP. The Destroid ref is no better. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There is still plenty of systemic bias in favour of the interests of young male Westerners in Wikipedia. In the case of pornography the ridicule has been enough for us to tighten our notability guidelines quite dramatically, but there is still plenty to do about other topics such as popular music and computer games. We discount blogs and other such unreliable sources for most topics, so we should do the same here. Where are the books from university presses and the academic papers that have coverage of AdvertCity? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hammer Film Productions. MBisanz talk 13:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Terry Ilott

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

An essentially sourceless CV of middling film-industry executive. I'm not seeing any sign of industry impact (awards, say). Calton | Talk 14:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to George Ezra. MBisanz talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

George Ezra & Friends

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was = Non notable podcast Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep Appears like it might be notable due to the guests that appear on the show. Froome2017 ( talk) 14:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Garhi, Nepal

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

If you believe geonames, "Garhi" is simply a synonym for the Udayapur District; it is also, however, a common name component (or its variant, gadhi) which appears to mean "fort", if Sindhuli Gadhi and Rasua Garhi are any indication. What I cannot find is a specific "Garhi" village whose principal name isn't something longer. I am open to the notion of redirecting this back to Garhi, but the current claims of this uncited article are untenable as it stands. Mangoe ( talk) 11:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, we'll probably end up deleting this as there is just not a enough information to locate it properly. I've looked in Geohacks The Times Atlas of the World around "40 kilometres south-west of...Kathmandu" and turned up nothing. Without precise coordinates or a definite source I don't know where we go from here. However, I'm not going for delete just yet as I came up with a couple of sources that suggest that a place of this name does, or once did, exist. In this book there is "Finally the fourth generation of Narkunwar Singh, named Jai Singh Chand left Baligarh in Garhi, Nepal, crossed the river Kali and came west in search of a permanent homestead." But it's only snippet view. In The Crown Encyclopedia and Gazetteer there is "G3 78 811 Garhi, Nepal" which appears to be a map reference, but again, only snippet view so I can't be sure. If anyone can actually access either of those sources and confirm that they do verify existence then we should keep per WP:NPLACE. Spinning Spark 17:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That "811 Garhi" is actually "Sil Garhi" and points to a spot at the west end of Nepal on the map. Mangoe ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Refer to talk page. There's reasonable agreement here that this shouldn't be a stand alone article. I think we're looking at a merge somewhere, but I don't see any agreement on a target. There's already a discussion happening at Talk:Asian Highway Network. It seems like that's a better place to continue to hash this out. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

AH374

AH374 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined by myself - initial report said No sources, original article creator is blocked sock which was proved to be incorrect, as user was blocked as NOTHERE. No opinion on subject Night fury 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Laurence Brown (writer)

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

After cleaning up this article to remove sources that fail to meet third-party source criteria, I am convinced that there's nothing notable about this man. He has written books, but that is not sufficient evidence by itself of notability unless it can be shown that the books are notable. Neither he nor the books have been covered by third-party media or other sources not connected with him to the extent that notability is established. George Custer's Sabre 05:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone contributing to this discussion would be far better advised to do based on this version of the article rather than the current one, from which the nominator removed every assertion of notability before first attempting to WP:PROD it and now bringing it to AfD. The nominator's justification for this removal was "Sorry but all of these sources are either commercial (ie Amazon) or sources associated with the author". While this justification would have been mostly valid (primary sources are sometimes acceptable for content, though not for notability) if the end result had been a viable and properly sourced article, this behaviour is completely inappropriate if, as in this case, the end result is a version of the article (effectively no content at all) even more likely to be deleted than the previous one (badly sourced content) - it is usually a far easier matter to determine if an article should be kept if there is existing content that can help one to look for better sources than have to rebuild the article from scratch. (And, as a final side-comment, given the reasons for removing the rest of the article, it is rather strange that the one remaining sentence is sourced to an Amazon subsidiary ( Goodreads), and is in just the part of that site where the content is most likely to have come from the author or their publisher. PWilkinson ( talk) 09:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Please assume good faith my friend. The article was a puff piece based only on sources connected to the subject. On a BLP I have the right and responsibility to remove content that is poorly referenced. Check the BLP guidelines. They say: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” That’s all I did. The key instruction I followed was this: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.“ Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jeff Taylor (entrepreneur)

Jeff Taylor (entrepreneur) (  | 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: as blatant promo article; this is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 00:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude ( talk) 04:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not a bit notable. George Custer's Sabre 05:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Not a bit notable" seems harsh considering the guy founded one of the most known websites and while he has not received the most coverage, what can be found should be sufficient to satisfy WP:BASIC:
  • Thanem, T. The Monstrous Organization. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN  9780857938176 – via Google Books.
  • Gallo, Carmine. 10 Simple Secrets of the World's Greatest Business Communicators. Sourcebooks, Inc. ISBN  9781402206962 – via Google Books.
  • Virk, Rizwan (2017-10-19). Treasure Hunt: Follow Your Inner Clues to Find True Clues. Watkins Media. ISBN  9781786780577 – via Google Books.
  • Vas, Gratian (2017-12-06). Little Things about Great People: Inspirational Stories. Notion Press. ISBN  9781946390417 – via Google Books.
  • "Buffalo.dj, new start-up from Monster.com founder Jeff Taylor, will represent and record DJs". Boston.com. Retrieved 2018-04-04.
At the very least, a redirect/merge to Monster.com should be considered. Regards So Why 10:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one has commented on the references recently provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stray Kids. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Changbin (rapper)

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

Individual fails WP:NMG - He has not officially released any solo music nor has he acted which tends to be the case with idols currently, all sources are about the group he is in; not him personally. Abdotorg ( talk) 13:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg ( talk) 13:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg ( talk) 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Cullen328 "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://web.archive.org/web/20180315133422/http://viltin.hu/viltin/" ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 12:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

VILTIN Galéria

VILTIN Galéria (  | 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 any notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete it's an advertisement. I may not be able to read Hungarian, but google translate makes it clear enough that this is the gallery talking about itself. "Our mission", "we are involved". Vexations ( talk) 13:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I was giving it the benefit of the doubt as google translate is not always an exact tool. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Then again, it appears to be copied from a previous incarnation of their website. Google still has a cache. [27] Likely a copyvio, if they haven't licensed the content appropriately. Vexations ( talk) 13:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award

Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award (  | 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 appears to be a non-notable award given by a non-notable organisation. Aside from obvious press releases at the time of the awards, seemingly usually in local news media, there doesn't seem to be much to support it or indeed the (unlinked) organisation. Sitush ( talk) 12:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the article is the target of a vast paid editing ring, most likely related to this, and most recently they've even indulged in faking references. The article was originally created to promote this subject, and as I mentioned there, any coverage is incidental as the name is notable and these people seem to capitalize on the confusion. 50 to 60 plaques awarded a year. — Spaceman Spiff 22:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt the article and Block the involved editors---UPE Spam.I will repeat my PROD-rationale--Non-notable award by a non-notable body.Hardly covered nationally, other than in local news.Further, mentions in resumes aren't an indicator of notability of award, (esp. given that the notability of the recipients is itself doubtful) and coverage in unadulterated PR stuff fails to instill any confidence, either. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable award which sounds more like a PR exercise. FITINDIA 19:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This award is a notable government award and is awarded by the Government of India to outstanding persons for their outstanding achievements. No government award requires promotion or any other thing like that and this award cannot be achieved by anyone until and unless he has done something extremely outstandingly new or trending in his field. That's why a very few notable persons are given this award every year which I cited on the article's page but it was removed idk why, but those citations can still be found in the article's history. Huge media coverage is also available to support the awards notability but some people refuse to accept it even though they know that it is completely acceptable. Some people are confused that this award is given by private organisations but they are highly mistaken. ONLY and ONLY the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA gives this award. It is a government award and the government of India gives this award by itself and notable things by government don't require any promotion, they only require that people should have proper knowledge about it. Hence I think that this article should stay on the free encyclopaedia. It does not matter that what anyone says about this award but that doesn't change its notability. Sincerely — N1197L ( talk) 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC) — N1197L ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep because the‘Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award’ is mentioned in government scheme at serial No.-20 in ‘Awards.’ section of this link http://www.deccanherald.com/content/12096/government-schemes-projects-named-nehru.html while ‘Indira Gandhi Prize for National Integration’ is at serial number 19. Given that it proves that this award is being conferred by notable government body. I believe that this subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) John Carter Lambert ( talk) 17:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)— John Carter Lambert ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Note to closer: being mentioned in a government scheme, or even being a government scheme, is not itself anything of relevance to GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED, for starters. John Carter Lambert appears to be an SPA and the claim is dubious: yes, it is mentioned in an ambiguously-titled report from the Deccan Herald that is just a list of things named after the Nehru-Gandhi family but there has been no evidence that the government recognises it other than that particular list in a (not massively reliable) newspaper. Our article claims the awarding body is the All India National Unity Conference, about which no information can be found other than as an awarder. - Sitush ( talk) 17:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable award invented and conferred by non-notable organization. It is NOT conferred by the Indian Government. The coopting of Indira Gandhi's name is pretty blatant. And this wiki article seems to be an effort to confer notability on some dubious wiki article subjects. Softlavender ( talk) 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dato Roman Yek Siew Lee

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

That a person has the title of Dato' indicates that they are highly regarded in society, and as a corollary may indicate they meet the criteria for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. I note that the only references given in article are from WordPress and so are Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH-d sources that do not assist any assertion notability for Mr Yek Shirt58 ( talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Biomedical Research

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

Possibly- predatory journal from a possibly-predatory publisher (at least, Beall considers Allied Academies predatory) of questionable notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep, as its indexed in selective databases and service (JCR, Scopus, however those need to be confirmed via WP:IS since Allied Academics likes to fudge things like these to look better) and meets WP:NJOURNALS. The journal has a longer history than at Allied Academics, having been published by Andrew John Publishing before being acquired by Allied Academies/ OMICS, and from some other outlet before AJP. This is a case where Allied Academics acquired an existing notable journal in ~2016 when they purchased the Pulsus Group. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 08:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bang Krabue

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

Disambiguation page only lists one actual link. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 09:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - all listed entries are legitimate uses of the term, and per WP:NGEO are notable as legally recognized populated places, even if no separate article has been written for them yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalCost ( talk • contribs)
Comment: That's the issue. We don't create disambiguation pages for potential articles with the same name. When and if two or more Bang Krabue articles show up, then a disambiguation page is created, otherwise it's useless. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rape threats against the daughter of U.S. President

Rape threats against the daughter of U.S. President (  | 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 first thought of speedy, but whatever this is non encyclopaedic concoction with no any informative purpose other than news as it is– Ammarpad ( talk) 11:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Geneseo station

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

Proposed railway station with no significant sources. "Little other information is known" says to me non-notable. Note only source says line "was" meant to be completed 2015 Night fury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Night fury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Night fury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A search doesn't give any sources other than that given, which is irrelevant as noted - it clearly isn't acting as a reliable source. Notability most definitely not provided. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Quad Cities (train) (if that's even notable) or Delete — WP:CRYSTAL and WP:JUNK. It's only 4 sentences, and the last 3 are misstatements. No idea what "construction expectations ... have commenced" means in the article. Both sources used for the location of the station actually say that the public does not yet know which site has been picked for the train station. I've looked for substantial sources online, and as far as I can tell, there isn't even that much about the old train station in town, let alone the new one. What little news there is about the proposed station just repeats that plans are being made and sites are being decided: You can swap the years on the articles and not know the difference. Here's what I've found about the stations: "Cochran family gives mini depot to Geneseo Historical Museum" (2016-09-07) says "The depot, located on First Street, was built in 1899. After passenger trains ceased service to Geneseo, the depot was converted into office and business space." It shows, at the Geneseo Historical Museum, the last-generation Rock Island Railroad station sign and a model of the station shown at Old Geneseo Train Station in 2014. "Geneseo knows where it wants Amtrak station" (2012-11-13) has contradictory statements that IDOT "wants to put the new Amtrak station just to the east of the old railroad station in Geneseo. ... they're looking at a couple of different places for where they could put the new train station. The only one the department is currently disclosing is the one near the old train station though." It also says "IDOT and the city say they'll have a site picked out for the train station by the fall of 2013. Construction will then start on the station in 2014" which was right when Illinois' state finances went sour, which means it's probably postponed for years again. When someone uploads a photo of a 21st-century Amtrak ticket for Geneseo, let me know. -- Closeapple ( talk) 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere station, a whole series of not-stations on the similarly-not-restarted Black Hawk (Amtrak train). -- Closeapple ( talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:CRYSTAL and traincruftery. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Phelex Foundation

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

Nothing notable about the org. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miles Millar. MBisanz talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Millar Gough Ink

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

There are... a heckuva lot of notable topics surrounding this, to the point where if there is any one of them that is somehow the most valid redirect I don't see any obvious reason why.

Coverage appears to be mostly or entirely passing mention (e.g., [32], [33], [34]) in connection with related subjects, but not about this company directly. Doesn't look like it's possible to write really anything beyond what's already there, just founders and list of connected works. No depth of coverage that I can find. GMG talk 17:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I mean, yeah. But.. that doesn't mean there are any sources that treat them in any depth which can be used to write an article with. Notability is not inherited from related projects or people. GMG talk 14:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Sources such as here discuss the collaboration in depth. Perhaps the title and focus on the company is the hangup. FloridaArmy ( talk) 15:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That's not an independent published source; it's a bio to promote one of their shows. Besides that, it only mentions the company in passing in a single sentence. It's about the people. The people seem to be clearly notable. But in order to establish notability about the company (and have anything to write an article with), we need sources that deal specifically about the company, and not things or people related to it. We need sourced that deal with the company in-depth, and not just passing mention. GMG talk 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect/merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Islamic Perspective on Human Rights

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

An article on human rights in Islam is a good idea, but this is an essay per WP:NOTESSAY. It begins with a much shorter, less detailed and unsourced replica of History of human rights, then jumps to a description of the rights granted under Islam quite similar to Islam and humanity, sourced only by the Quran and Al-Risalah al-Huquq. There's a great deal of personal interpretation, especially in the second half, and I can't see much worth merging here either to History of human rights, Al-Risalah al-Huquq, or Islam and humanity. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 10:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as presently construed - ESSAY, POV issues (the multiple "peace be upon him" are a minute though noticeable feature here), and lack of RS (the Quran and Al-Risalah al-Huquq would be PRIMARY, the latter would also imply this is shia). An article on this subject, if created, should be based on modern academic texts. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Essay based on primary sources. For the article to even exist, essentially it would have to be deleted and re-built using WP:RS. XavierItzm ( talk) 11:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this palpably personal ESSAY as per WP:NOTESSAY. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This article fails NPOV and is a fork of the articles discussed in the nom made without discussion (also, Islamic ethics#Human rights). The tone and most of the material is not encyclopedic. The title doesn't match the content - the content is mostly about the Quran and a 7th century hadith and ignores anything that happened in the the area of human rights in Islam between the 7th century and the 20th. Smmurphy( Talk) 14:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Reboot (magazine)

Reboot (magazine) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources:  "Reboot (magazine)" –  news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) As mentioned on the talk page, the article is wholly unsourced both here and at hrwp. There are some possible refs for the conferences in the gamesindustry.biz, but that publication is an affiliated media partner and not about the magazine anyway. Didn't find Croatian/southeast European sources either, but ping me if you do. No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Harinath Reddy Master

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

Prod Tag removed; somewhat promotional article where the subject does not appear to be notable. He appears to have appeared on several minor dance competitions, but otherwise there is no significant coverage. Searches turn up little but Youtube videos and social media. Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 03:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As the article currently is, delete. No prejudice against rewriting an expanded version or merging into the author article. Tone 08:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Pardon, madame: pismo iz Čedada

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

It's a book. The author doesn't have an article, even at the other wiki. Not a single source. Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Pardon me, nominator, but Boris Jukic (b 1947) does have an article on the Slovenian Wikipedia which lists this book as one of his. The article is https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Jukić and it has been there since 2010. Jukic has significant coverage in GBooks and elsewhere (assuming I understand the Slovenian language sources correctly) and also many hundreds of library holdings according to worldcat [35] and presumably even more in non-members. He appears notable. Move the page to Boris Jukić and rewrite it as a biography. James500 ( talk) 19:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You're absolutely right, James500. I did look but was too hasty in my reading.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 09:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as Doomsdayer520 noted - to the tune that even in the Slovenian Wikipedia where the author has a page (and thus presumably there is more consideration on him and his works), the book does not have one. It should not have a page here, either, though an author page would certainly appear to be notable, if created. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Full Noise (aircraft)

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

One of hundreds of individual racing aircraft nothing to indicate that this is noteworthy for a mention in wikipedia so really cant support a stand-alone article. MilborneOne ( talk) 09:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Keep Not notable enough for its own article. I understand it's a first for New Zealand but we can't have an article for each individual aircraft. - Samf4u ( talk) 12:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Change my vote. Was not aware of Category:Individual aircraft, thanks for enlightening me Petebutt. - Samf4u ( talk) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article subject fails WP:GNG. Just because it has a name and is mentioned in a couple of specialist journals does not make it notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    Just to add to that, WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage", which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Swiss F/A-18 simulator AfD, for example, made it abundantly clear that we do not accept a few mentions in the odd journal as establishing notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Just to comment that the Flypast entry is one of many bits of "news" that they have in each issue and really not what you consider an article. So in reality it a just a mere mention. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Border sessions

Border sessions (  | 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 this page was created on NL WP with the same content and was speedy deleted but I found that the event is supported by the city gov of The Hague as per the web of the event and on a quick Google search yields some coverage though in Dutch thus AfD'ing it here for community to decide.. Saqib ( talk) 08:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree that A7 is there (and I don't think any other CSD) - certainly indication of a innovative technical conference suggests some importance, or could be clarified extremely rapidly even if not.
I was originally agreeing delete, but there is a high quality secondary source I found on last year's conference which could be used to add a significant amount. If someone can find something further, whether in English or Dutch, there would appear to be sufficient notability to Keep. Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Nosebagbear: I think would be better if you provide links here so notability could be ascertained.. -- Saqib ( talk) 11:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib:, apologies - Makery report on Border conference Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Perhaps, someone out there hopes for the subject's increased notability through its inclusion in Wikipedia. Unfortunately for that, the causation moves in the opposite direction. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jeff Stoddard

Jeff Stoddard (  | 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 created "on request", most substantive edits are by a series of WP:SPAs, no evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC, no reliable sources. Notability asserted by inheritance. Guy ( Help!) 07:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Out of all of the bands listed in his discography, just two of them have Wikipedia articles by which I can evaluate their notability — and he wasn't a core member of either of those bands (neither band's article even mentions his name at all, in fact), but merely a session musician. But being a session musician on other bands' albums is not in and of itself a free pass over our notability standards for musicians just because the person's existence is technically verifiable in an album booklet's credits list — and he doesn't pass WP:GNG as an individual, because none of the references here are reliable sources, and neither are they about him at all. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, notability not established by the refs. Szzuk ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jode Gannon

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

All substantive edits to this article, including creation, are by three WP:SPAs. It lacks reliable independent sources to substantiate notability. The main claim to notability is by association: playing at festivals where more notable acts also appeared. One "hit" on a non-notable chart, signed to a relinked label. Google turns up nothing other than gig listings and the occasional namecheck. Guy ( Help!) 07:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Craig Mueller

Craig Mueller (  | 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 on candidate for Attorney-General of Nevada fails WP:POLOUTCOMES Chetsford ( talk) 06:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. I will protect this and a few other capitalizations. DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Amina oyagbola

Amina oyagbola (  | 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 this BLP has been previously created and deleted under a diff title at Amina Oyagbola but since this one cites some ref and is not very promotional so instead of speedy, I would go with AfD.

I would say none of the posts/offices the subject has held are notable on their own. she has some trivial coverage in independent RS but I could not locate any in-depth coverage so apparently the subject does not appear to meet GNG... Saqib ( talk) 05:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Ok so I didn't knew about that AfD.. I wonder why Amina Oyagbola does not mention about AfD closing. So in this case. Speedy delete this one and salt it. Thanks to The Mighty Glen for saving time of others. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Badland Brawl

Badland Brawl (  | 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 put this up as a PROD, which was rejected by the original article creator after the original creator added a couple of YouTube videos as supposed references. It still fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. YouTube videos reviewing a product (one of which has only 15 total views as of this writing) don't impart notability. As I said in the original prod: "No reliable independent evidence of significant notability among thousands of iOS games. Routine product reviews alone rarely constitute notability. Also, quack." 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco ( talk) 05:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - The creator has tried VERY hard to push notablity when it doesn't exist. Article is actually well written, so I hope they stick around, but iOS freemium games rarely are notable, and this is no exception (Although the touch arcade reference is good.). Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - The promotional lead could be cleaned up, but I'm not finding any reliable sources and most of the article is a game guide. ZettaComposer ( talk) 12:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Binju Ali

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

Actors 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:ACTORS.. also fails GNG.. Saqib ( talk) 04:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sheba.xyz

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

This is basically advertising of non notable new business. It fails the substance of WP:NCORP criterion. Once you strip that single so-called "award" you're left with speedy spam material – Ammarpad ( talk) 04:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for looking into the article. If you strip the notable part of anything, that would not be notable any more. So you are correct on your point, as you striped the National Information and Communication Technology Awards from the article and the importance goes down to zero.
The company own the National ICT award in 2017, please check the related wiki article about the event and their name is listed there. Along with that check the news and article on Sheba.xyz by yourself and then decide if it was right to add a deletion tag on the article. Please read the references mentioned on the article and by searching on the web. I request you please remove the tag as it does not fit on 'reason' you mentioned on your request for deletion.-- Nasir Khan Saikat ( talk) 04:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirkhan ( talk • contribs) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hinduism in Turkey

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

No indication of notability, previous PROD was removed without reason by a user whose only edits are two removals or PROD tags. Such a small community is unlikely to be notable. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hinduism in Turkmenistan

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

None of the sources indicate notability. Probably not a notable topic due to community's small size. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hinduism in Uzbekistan

Hinduism in Uzbekistan (  | 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 in-depth coverage, sources appear to be minor mentions in articles talking about something else; I doubt such a small community has coverage indicating notability. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the SYNTH and blatant religious bigotry evident from the assumption that all Indians are Hindus or all Hindus are Indian is also a problem on that page. There are millions of Christians in India akd lots of Muslims too. Someone went through and created hinduism stubs and redirects for every country and territory on earth. Legacypac ( talk) 08:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Mareroo

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

Genames calls it an unverified populated place, and I couldn't verify it either. Coords land on the mouth of a dry riverbed, with one building not too far off, and that's it. GHits are thrown off by someone with a similar name, but when you exclude him, yes, it's all clickbait. Mangoe ( talk) 03:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Aleem Iqbal (Lord Aleem)

Aleem Iqbal (Lord Aleem) (  | 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 any notability. Sure he has a few newspaper mentions but not for anything that amounts to notability. He runs a rental car business and had one of them damaged. He suffered some verbal racial abuse. He auditioned for a role on Top Gear. He is apparently rich. None of those is anything like notability. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   14:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
(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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 13:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Arjun Babuta

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

Junior champions don't meet WP:NSPORTS, and he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 01:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rob Hayter

Rob Hayter (  | 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 stunt performer and bit part actor, not referenced well enough to make him includable yet. Actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- if he doesn't have a strong distinction such as an Oscar or Emmy or CSA nomination, then the notability test he has to pass is not "has had roles", but "has received a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage for the having of roles". But for sourcing, what we have here is a directory listing in Turner Classic Movies's IMDb substitute -- not a notability-assisting source, for the same reason that the real IMDb isn't -- and one newspaper article that's substantively enough about him to start counting for something. But it takes several pieces of reliable source coverage, not just one, before a person has enough reliable source coverage to pass GNG. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability jump to another level, but nothing here is enough in and of itself yet. Bearcat ( talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Kinu t/ c 00:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Nikki Novak

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

Semi-advertorial WP:BLP of an actress notable primarily as the host of a talk show on a web video platform, which is referenced solely to her IMDb profile with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all. As always, having an IMDb profile is not an automatic free pass into Wikipedia in and of itself -- a person has to receive media coverage, not just have a profile in a directory of every person who works in film or television at all, to clear our notability standards. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Adam9007 ( talk) 01:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marin Software

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

Unremarkable company advertising tagged Legacypac ( talk) 20:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Gravity Falls episodes#Season 1 (2012–2013). Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Land Before Swine

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

Sources are SoundCloud, Tumblr, etc., most of the article is copy pasted from [41], and there's no indication that this episode in particular is notable for any reason; it seems to fail the GNG. XenonNSMB ( talk, contribs) 22:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 02:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement. Bearcat ( talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gillian Jerome

Gillian Jerome (  | 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, with some advertorial edges to it, of a writer whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as pieces of her own writing about other things and/or the self-published websites of professional colleagues and an organization she's directly affiliated with -- and it also significantly pads out its sourcing by coatracking and referencing highly digressionary content about her husband and the organization, as well as non-notable public readings in her own home town and a section that, until I poleaxed it, listed and "referenced" every single work by some other writer that Jerome ever reviewed for a literary journal. As always, however, you don't demonstrate a writer as notable by referencing the article to sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things -- you demonstrate a writer as notable by referencing the article to sources in which she's the subject of content written by other people.
Of the 51 footnotes here, I count literally just three that actually represent reliable source media outlets that are fully independent of Jerome herself -- but of those three, one just namechecks her existence a single time as the provider of a statistic in an article that's in no way about her otherwise, one represents a book review in her local alt-weekly, and the third is about her winning a literary award on the second tier of notability: notable enough to be mentioned in an article that's already well-sourced, but not notable enough to bestow the writer's notability all by itself if it's the only properly sourced notability claim the writer actually has.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find the correct kind of sourcing to write and reference an article about Jerome properly -- but the sourcing here isn't remotely acceptable, and the article body doesn't say anything about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced much, much better than this. I'm also okay with draftifying per Shalor's request below. Bearcat ( talk) 22:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Hi! If possible, can this be transferred back into the student's userspace if this is deleted via AfD so they can work on the issues you've brought up here? I'll work with them on the article while it's live, of course. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 13:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure, that would be entirely acceptable as well. I've added support for that to my original statement. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Contributors can copy the text from the edit page and work on the text in order to re-submit it, if they gather enough evidence for notability. Thus far, this is one of the relatively rare instances of a text with obviously lots of good work (I try not to use the term "work of love") in it, about a subject that, however, try as the contributors might, has not yet established WP:GNG, nor does it meet WP:ARTIST. Here's hoping. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Hi! Just wanted to make a quick mention that I've made mention of this at Women in Red to see if they can help with the tone and sourcing, along with the work the student is doing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for now. What's the urgency on deletion? This being part of a student project, and currently being edited by several people trying to bring it up to code, It won't hurt to wait on this. Wikipedia isn't going to be damaged if we allow the student, instructor, and other editors a little time to get this up to at least a basic framework of what it should be. — Maile ( talk) 23:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If this AfD nomination acts as a wake up call to whomever is interested in working on the article (and establishing notability), then that would be a most welcome outcome, too. Every AfD nomination is presumably submitted on good faith and under house rules. "What's the urgency," you ask? And "where is the harm"? I'm sure you mean well but those questions are a bit surprising (especially coming from an administrator). This is a community of volunteers, taking off time to do encyclopaedic work; keeping Wikipedia clean is part of the work. In my view, if the interested editors do not make haste, the deletion could go through because "temporarily unworthy" articles are not allowed in Wikipedia. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 05:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
But needs willing eyes to check for inaccuracy, sloppy cut-and-paste, etc - see talk page. And it appears that an instructor has set a 2,000 word target for the students' contributions: just the way to encourage bloated writing, addition of irrelevances, stretching of sources, etc. Not helpful. Pam D 09:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
A literary award is not an automatic GNG pass in and of itself — it's the depth and volume and quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support a notability claim, not the claim itself, that determines whether GNG is passed or not. The ReLit Award is, in reality, an award whose reliable source coverage is spotty at best: sometimes you can find enough sourcing to get a ReLit winner or nominee over GNG, and sometimes you can't. So it's a second-tier literary award for the purposes of WP:AUTHOR: notable enough to count if the article can be well-sourced, but not "inherently" notable enough to count as a guarantee of a Wikipedia article without regard to sourceability issues. Bearcat ( talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Update. The WikEd consultant has worked with the creator to improve the article — while it does still need some more work before it could be assessed as a good article, there are enough properly reliable sources now to cover off the reason why I listed this for AFD in the first place. Accordingly, I'm withdrawing this nomination and just tagging the article for maintenance. Bearcat ( talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Plastic Surgery & Plastic Doctor & Plastic Hospital Office for Barbie Version

Plastic Surgery & Plastic Doctor & Plastic Hospital Office for Barbie Version (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ultimately WP:NOTNEWS. Merely the app version of Elsagate. There are many different apps and Flash games like this, and this was just a routine controversy. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marlon Bundo (disambiguation)

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

The page refers to only a single item: a rabbit, and the two books that have been written about the rabbit. Since the two books about the rabbit are already widely discussed in the rabbit's article, this disambiguation is unnecessary. BarbadosKen ( talk) 00:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marcel Hatch

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate in a political party leadership election. This is not a claim of notability that gives a person an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL -- if a person doesn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they have to win the leadership, not just run in the convention and lose, to be deemed notable as a politician. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (a piece of his own writing about something else, and the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations), and the only exception is an opinion column about something else which merely happens to briefly glance on Hatch's existence as a digression from the main topic, not a source about Hatch. Which means that none of these sources count as evidence of notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to John Walker (programmer). J04n( talk page) 16:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The Digital Imprimatur

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards on notability. The subject warrants nothing more than a sentence at John Walker (programmer). Perrythwi ( talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 14:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Steve Papermaster

Steve Papermaster (  | 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 CEO of a company that does not exist on Wikipedia. Best source found was this, but others are interviews and other primary source stuff, or mere mentions. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NPERSON/ WP:GNG. Was previously PRODded in 2015 but removed by DGG. talk to !dave 08:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

NU NRG

AfDs for this article:
NU NRG (  | 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 all 12 points of WP:BAND. Has been tagged for lack of sources for 6 years, and my own searching failed to come up with anything. Lots of listings on music services and the like, but nothing that qualifies as a WP:RS. That fact that they have not existed as a band for 13 years, while not in itself a problem ( WP:NTEMP), means it is unlikely that any future coverage will emerge.

One of the members of the band, Andrea Ribeca, was just the subject of a deletion review, but that's not really germane to the band's notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies". Google Books. Retrieved 2018-04-12.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_4&oldid=1142617136"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE