Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 19 April 21 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 no consensus. Trending keep, but clearly no consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Identity Extremism

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 will copy and paste here what I've written on the article's talk page with some editions. No credibility whatsoever, and certainly not significant or notable to warrant a standalone article. Just because the FBI concocted the term which is a hoax by itself does not necessarily mean it warrants inclusion. There is no such thing as "Black Identity Extremism." The US calling its Black citizens "Black Identity Extremists" who are actually "Black activists" fighting against injustice, their brutal killings by the the police, violence against them, racism and the like does not make them "Black Identity Extremists." If they are Black Identity Extremists where are the White Identity Extremists who are doing the killings, the brutalisation and racism with the institutions in place to enforce the subjugation and disenfranchisement of its Black citizens? If the Blacks fighting for their right to life, and to live dignified lives are deemed "Black Identity Extremists", what do you call organisations like the KKK who have been killing/lynching Black Americans in the most brutal fashion for decades and still continue their fascist ideology against Black Americans? This foolishness must stop. Is Wikipedia a tool for propaganda or a true encyclopedia?

Wikipedia is not here for propaganda as far as I'm aware. Maybe in the future when there are real "Black Identity Extremists/Extremism" and covered in detail by reliable third party sources, perhaps then we can create an article called "Black Identity Extremism." For now, it is mainly a political agenda driven by those who are trying to turn the issue around rather than addressing the injustice, racism and brutal killings of a particular ethic group within the United States who historically have been the most disenfranchised in the US and still continue to be disenfranchised and discriminated against. Black Americans are an ethnic minority, and this targeting is foolish and not befitting an encyclopedia. Also, there are Black people all around the world. Are they also "Black Identity Extremist" too? This foolishness and systematic bias must stop! This article is utter nonsense and should be deleted. Further, without biting, and in good faith if I may add, I think it is quite unusual that the initiator of this article only registered quite recently yet the first and only article they've initiated/created is this controversial article which only started towards the end of last year thanks to the FBI. Generally, new editors start by editing articles and even if they go on to create new articles, they mainly create non controversial articles e.g. sports, bios, culture, religion, political figures etc. Their first article generally are not controversial topics especially new controversial subjects. Phew! One has to be pretty brave. I can't also help but notice that they have not contributed to Wiki anymore once this article went up. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The phrase is not sufficiently notable for its own article, and the fact that the Trump-Sessions Justice Department summoned this spectre into existence doesn't mean it exists. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The case for deletion needs to be based on Wikipedia policies which the article contravenes, and I am not seeing that here. Reliable sources exist. The article is on a notable subject, based on the amount of media coverage that exists. Is it a hoax? Well, a copy of the FBI report is available online - I am not qualified to say whether it was generated by the FBI or not. To me, it sounds like a case of
    neutrality then we should edit the article to make it more neutral, not delete it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:NEO test: there are plenty articles about the term, rather than just using the term. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
advance propaganda. I don't know of any Black Identity Extremists or organisations, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction and I'm not talking about Black civil right activists or organisation who are fighting against racial discrimination, disenfranchisement and the brutal killings of Black Americans by US law enforcement, I mean the real “black identity extremists” or movements. It does not exist. It is hoax fabricated by the FBI hoping the term will gain popular usage. Now, if you ask me who the White Identity Extremists are I can give you several examples starting with the KKK. They have set up organisations and advanced the ideology that Whites are superior to Black Americans (or any Black person for that matter). They have killed/lynched, maimed, kidnapped and wrecked Black American families for decades, yet I do not see the FBI or US president labeling them as White Identity Extremists or domestic terrorists (Which they are). To the contrary, the US president regard them as fine people. In the future when there are real “black identity extremists”, then we can create such an article. Wikipedia is going nowhere.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
"I don't like it". The value of this article does not have to require that the terms within are universally agreed upon, so long as it can be agreed that the mentioning of these terms in the way that they have been mentioned is sufficiently notable in and of itself, of which it appears to be. This article deserves to exist because the concept of this sort of extremes that gained enough traction that the FBI thought it was worthwhile to create the content they have decided to create. As with any ideological argument, there is a degree of ambiguity as to where boundaries are, and as such, this article does not qualify in any way as propaganda. It is important to discuss this calmly and rationally, and from my perspective it appears to be that this article does not need to be deleted. SuperChris (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE which asks has there been "further analysis or discussion" some time after the event. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ellis

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a not yet elected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- he has to win the seat and thereby hold the office, not just run as a candiate, to be considered notable as a politician, and absent that he has to already have preexisting notability for other reasons. But this makes no such claim -- the only other thing this article says about him is that he's a retired batallion chief for a local fire department, which is not a role that would have gotten him an encyclopedia article, and the only sources present are his own campaign Facebook page and Ballotpedia, which are not notability-assisting sources. As always, no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the article be returned to draft status pending the result of the November ballot. (talk) 0230, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't retain articles about as yet unelected candidates in draft form either — if we did, then every candidate in every election would always have to have one, and draftspace would become exactly the repository of campaign brochures for aspiring future notables that our notability requirements for politicians are intentionally designed to prevent Wikipedia from becoming. If he wins the seat in November, Wikipedia administrators have the ability to undelete the article with one click on a button, so the work won't be lost entirely. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Braeden Ferrington

Braeden Ferrington (edit | 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 NSPORTS. IBL is not a professional league. None of the sources establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Mark Worth

Mark Worth (edit | 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 article is promotional in tone and written by two

WP:SYN, virtually no secondary sources about him. Google has remarkably few hits given the laudatory tone of the text. He seems to have founded half a dozen or more organisations, none of which appear to be of any size at all. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Which "Invalid criteria" would that be? Which is an irrelevant question, really, since the actual rationale isn't "few Google hits" but "smaller-than-expected digital footprint given the claims made". --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth is a very public and active whistleblower protection activist. Little if any of the entry was copy-pasted from his own materials. This entry is not laudatory. It simply describes his work as an activist and journalist. This critique seems strangely personal -- with loaded, pejorative terms such as "remarkably few" and "packed full". How can this editor know how large the organizations that Worth founded are? Transparency International, where he started the whistleblower program, is one largest and best-known NGOs in the world -- and by far the largest organization that focuses on anti-corruption. According its website, the SE Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection has more than 30 members in 13 countries. This critique raises random points and is not a credible. This critique includes personal-type comments and its criticisms are not in line with Wikipedia requirements. There is no requirement that organizations are of a certain size. And there is no requirement that X number of Wikipedia pages be linked to another page. Wikipedia has no requirement for X percent of links to be Wikilinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep -- Nom gives no valid reason for deletion. The tone is irrelevant, the number of wikilinks is irrelevant, whether there's synthesis is irrelevant, and the number of GHits is irrelevant. Thus the nomination itself fails. However, the guy clearly meets
    WP:INTERVIEW, establish notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I do not find this article to be promotional or laudatory. Journalist and activists are public people, almost by definition. So, entries about them naturally would discuss how their work impacts politics and society. Also, if the Wikipedia community is all about public information, how can we delete an entry of a person who helps whistleblowers and who does investigative journalism? I agree with the comment that the tone of an entry is irrelevant, that the number of Wikilinks is irrelevant, and that the number of Google hits is irrelevant. The are countless entries on Wikipedia about people and places that do not have zillions of Google hits, but that which people should know about. Nowhere is this listed as a prerequisite for entry -- how "famous" a person already is. — Preceding
    WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Actually, it is, but I notice that you ignored the "little solid backing" part. Nice misdirection. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth qualifies under "Creative professionals" (#2) because his book on food irradiation is the first of its kind about this technology for the general audience.
I'm amending my comment as I still believe this should be deleted, it's nothing more than a PR piece full of press releases, self-published sources and general fluff. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that much, actually, only three paragraphs copied from his website about the awards he's won and the great people he's worked for. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic
I am an administrator. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to get personal. But respectfully, if you are an administrator, then you should know the criteria, e.g. the irrelevance of Google hits, the definition of author, the definition of notability. There is not even close to being a consensus for deletion. This criticism is random and mean-spirited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
An uninvolved administrator will evaluate the consensus here once 7 days have elapsed from this discussion's opening, I would advise waiting for that to happen instead of asking for a speedy conclusion, given that there is a dispute over whether this article should be kept or deleted. Iffy★Chat -- 12:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This entry has been up for nearly 3 years. There has never been a problem. Suddenly, when Worth apparently begins to work on high-profile and controversial whistleblower cases, someone is aggressively editing the entry and wants it to be deleted. In fact, most of recent edits to the entry were to remove details of his work as a whistleblower protection activist and researcher. Almost none of the other sections were edited. Very suspicious. Quinn2425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes, because nobody noticed it. More people have viewed it since this deletion nomination than in the previous month. It averages fewer than ten pageviews per day, probably fewer than five, and at least one of those is probably your Google alert. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is another completely irrelevant criterion not recognized by Wikipedia as grounds for deletion -- and, which seems oddly personal. Even if you want to consider Google hits, searching "Mark Worth" and "whistleblower" gets you 3,120 hits. Searching "
Tom Devine" and "whistleblower" gets you 8,920 hits. These figures are both in the four-digits. Are you saying that the entry for Tom Devine, who is probably the world's longest-serving NGO whistleblower activist, also should be deleted? Quinn2425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
See motivated reasoning. And consider whether you, with your 200 edits in 4 years, mostly referencing worth, including one other deleted article, are in a good position to lecture vastly more experienced Wikipedians on our content inclusion policies. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia, I am at a loss for words over the hostile, ad hominem and mean-spirited comments in this discussion. Plainly, these "critiques" have little or nothing to do with the actual content of the entry, but rather some sort of personal feelings regarding the subject of the entry. I hope that a professional-minded administrator or other person with authority can put an end to these hostile remarks. Having said that, the entry has been edited and improved to accommodate some of the other comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The only person here who displays any personal feelings towards the subject, is you. I doubt any of the others here have ever heard of him before. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing the AfD discussion / Keeping the entry -- Dear Wikipedia, Seven days have passed since this discussion was opened. According to the deletion policy, after seven days, a discussion may be closed and the entry shall not be deleted if there is no consensus in favor of deletion. If anything, there is a close to a consensus for keeping the entry, as most of main points raised by the AfD nominator have been shown to be irrelevant under Wikipedia guidelines. The AfD nominator's comments were not substantially supported by any other editor. The discussion disintegrated into ad ad hominem attacks, which are unhealthy for the Wikipedia community. I request that this discussion be closed today and the AfD tag to be removed. Quinn2425 (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)— Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You don't get to close it. You voted on it. That's not how this works. You also tried to vote NUMEROUS times. Lastly, the NUMBER of votes doesn't matter, the QUALITY of the arguments does. I suggest you back away. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree if I could find any reliable independent sources. The subject looks notable but is a gifted self-publicist and when you start peeling the layers, pretty much all you find is namechecks and press releases. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I very much would like to "back away," as productively suggested by an editor. But there is a great deal of misinformation in the comments that necessitate responses. The latest example is the comment that press releases are used as citations. First, are press releases not permitted by Wikipedia? Second, there are no press release produced by the subject. Third, any press releases used as citations, if there are any, are from credible, independent sources. I am baffled by the comment that there are no "reliable independent sources" in the entry. Among the sources are the UN, European Union, APEC, OECD, Le Monde, New York Times, Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel and so on. It is my view that this commenter has a personal and/or professional bias against the subject. Quinn2425 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)— Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You have made your views abundantly clear. Obviously you are a friend or associate and take this enormously personally. Nobody else here does. You have no actualt experience of Wikipedia and our sourcing policies, so now would be a great time to leave it to people who do. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much appreciate knowing an example of a "reliable independent source". Quinn2425 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entry for Worth is nominated for AfD, but the likes of Bruce Hildenbrand qualify for having a page? Quinn2425— Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
See
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

This entry is being considered for deletion, yet these journalists who barely have any record or history are not being deleted? -- Geoff Wolinetz, Buck Wolf, Elijah Wolfson, Paul Wohl. And these are just journalists whose names start with "Wo".Quinn2425 (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you feel that strongly about them, go here -->
zero, zip, nada, fuck-all -- to do with THIS article. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want to delete this whistleblower-related entry, I suggest also deleting these whistleblower-related entries:
Whistleblower, Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg. Quinn2425 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Again -- for the third time -- read
WP:AFD and follow the instructions. Or you could, you know, address the arguments about THIS ARTICLE. --Calton | Talk 08:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, 2-3 other commenters and myself in fact have responded to -- and refuted based on Wikipedia's own guidelines -- many of the critiques in this discussion. But whenever I have cited a specific Wikipedia guideline as a rationale for disqualifying a pro-delete comment, it is ignored. Unfortunately, many of the pro-delete people have resorted to personal attacks, snide language, profanity and other anti-social behavior. Not professional in my view. For some reason, the deck is stacked against this entry. The venom in the comments by the pro-delete people is so bizarre, I have to wonder about ulterior motives. By the way, I have made many edits to the entry to try to remove anything that could be perceived as promotional, while also adding more sources. If sources such as the New York Times, Le Monde, United Nations and European Union are not adequate, then I don't see how anyone can have a Wikipedia page. Do what you will.
This is my last comment, unless there are more untrue or foul comments posted.
In sum, these pro-delete comments are not supported by Wikipedia guidelines:
* packed full of web links to his books, videos and projects, instead of Wikilinks
* Google has remarkably few hits
* puffery
* general fluff
In sum, these pro-delete comments are not true:
* Big chunks look to have been copy-pasted from his own sites
* he very likely wrote this himself
* virtually no secondary sources about him
* none of the organizations he founded appear to be of any size at all
* little solid backing
* full of press releases, self-published sources
* great chunks of it were copyvios
Quinn2425 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While reading
WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I note you do not yet appear to have understood, I urge you also to study the difference between the words "refute" and "repudiate". Guy (Help!) 09:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Wim Naudé

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

Fails

WP:NACADEMIC#C6 specifically says that dean positions don't qualify for #6. Nothing else he's done seems to meet any other criteria. IagoQnsi (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 05:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:PROF#C1. I'm not sure how to best go about determining which, if any, of his works are highly cited. –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I am referring to Google Scholar. He has several papers with over 100 citations, including one in 2013 with 328 citations. Hopefully other users will chime in with their thoughts.
talk) 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Note:
    WP:G7), and the page probably has too many contributions from editors to be eligible for speedy deletion. I've notified them of this issue on their talk page and asked them to come comment on this AfD, but if they don't, it's worth noting that they appear to support deleting the page. –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Hi @IagoQnsi:, Thank you for your message. As the creator of the page I have requested by my boss to delete his Wikipedia page. That is why I requested for deletion of the page. Please guide me in this matter. That would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maastricht52 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, the article creator appears to be a spa/coi editor and the article has suffered BLP vandalism so i'm reasonably confident this is a genuine
    Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The article average 6 views a day and half of them will be bots. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Palgwatang

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

Source searches are providing almost nothing to verify the existence of this, other than the single source in the article. Furthermore, the toic has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Does not meet

WP:N. North America1000 01:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow editors evaluation of Garam's proposed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Albert

Antonia Albert (edit | 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 person does not seem notable enough to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. Better suited for the German Wikipedia maybe? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia aims to be an international encyclopedia. Just because this version is written in English does not mean that we focus our coverage on those who operate in English-speaking countries or require sources to exist in English. I have no opinion at this time as to weather Albert actually is notable, I just have to point out the deletion nomination is built on flawed understandings of language and Wikipedia. In theory the content of the German-language and English-language Wikipedias should be identical. In practice, because of how Wikipedia is operated, the notability guidelines in various language versions do not always end up being the same. Beyond this translation usually lags behind creation, and other factors come into play. However in theory an article that belongs in the German-language version of Wikipedia belongs in the English-language version of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging into a new Careship article would make sense and would be my preference. Although easy to say from my perspective as that would require someone to first create the article I assume! Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Insurrextion (2003)

Insurrextion (2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill WWE special. Redirection to main article rejected by User:Galatz. Of the 7 references, only two do more than mention it in passing, and both of those are blow-by-blow plot expositions. There is not enough specific content to make a merge to WWE_Insurrextion unreasonable. I'd also like to get consensus on Insurrextion (2001) and Insurrextion (2002) while we're at it. Slashme (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • "What are the features and benefits of having a WWE Network Subscription". help.wwe.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018.
Advertisement for WWE Network subscription; doesn't mention Insurrextion by name. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mention the specific episode; mentions series in passing. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How Stuff Works article about pro wrestling in general. Doesn't mention Insurrextion. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Episode entry on Cagematch.net. Just lists the contents. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Review on a Pro Wrestling review site. Doesn't make any claim that the show itself was notable in any way. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recital of the plot of the episode on a Pro Wrestling site. Doesn't make any claim of notability. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Catalogue site that seems to list all WWE shows. Supports
WP:ROTM status. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact that other WWE pay-per-view events have their own articles has no bearing on the notability of these articles. The other sources you list also don't reach the standard required by the GNG:
Mentions the series (not the specific episode) in passing in a list of the worst PPV names. --Slashme (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions the series (not the specific episode) in passing in a list of the worst PPV names. This time in Spanish. --Slashme (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions the series in passing. --Slashme (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has coverage in independent reliable sources. This is yet another disgusting case of people thinking that having coverage in reliable pro wrestling websites is somehow inferior to when a music website reviews an album or a film website reviews a film, (like the dismissal of
    talk) 06:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
My point was not that the source was in Spanish, rather that it was the same discussion as the previous source, but this time in Spanish. --Slashme (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Logic is flawed, "the article does not cliam notability" is not how that works, "notability" is a wikipedia guideline, not something stated in sources.  MPJ-DK  15:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to make a
credible claim of significance
. It has to explain to the reader why it's not just another pay per view show sold on DVD. Why is it unusual or special? What impact has it had on broader culture? Which reliable sources discuss the topic, and how? The sources don't have to say "This topic is notable", but they have to say why it's not just a run-of-the mill item.
Also note the text from
WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". Sure, the series as a whole meets the notability criteria, but each season? I'm just not seeing that here. --Slashme (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You also might want to read
WP:BLUDGEON - GalatzTalk 01:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
So i meant the SOURCE articles, Kent claiming each article "Doesn't make a claim of notability" when reviewing each source. You Seem to not understand how it works.  MPJ-DK  13:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source articles don't need to make a direct claim of notability, but they need to support a claim of notability in the Wikipedia article. So the Wiki article needs to say why the topic is significant, and the sources need to back that up. --Slashme (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There's a lot of terrible disambiguations here. Just having a year next to the name makes it overly ambiguous. (2003 event) would work better, same goes for all the similar articles. That said - simply nominating a single one of these articles for deletion won't accomplish anything besides confusing things, and I don't think it's so non notable that it should be totally wiped from Wikipedia, although having its own article is dubious. They should be nominated as a group. I think
    WP:ATD in this case would be to make a List of 2003 WWE pay-per-view events and merge them all into it, same with the other years.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Did you look at the other articles before suggesting that merge? That has to be the worst idea I have possibly ever heard. You want to merge approximately 491k bytes into one article, based on
WP:SPLIT
criteria by themselves.
In addition (2003 event) disambiguation is also a terrible suggestion.
WP:ATDAB is clear that the disambiguation should be as concise as possible. Since every single page is about an event, the word event is not needed. In addition to this being the standard setup for EVERY wrestling event, hundreds upon hundreds of pages. - GalatzTalk 01:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
A perfect example of the problem is when you compare
WP:PRECISION
, the disambiguations must at least say the type of article it is. A mass move is in order, preferably without leaving redirects due to the potential for confusion.
I didn't suggest merging ALL the articles and content. Only a small blurb for each, with the notable ones linking to their own article. It seems to me that there is an issue here where non notable wrestling events get an article simply because there is no place to put them otherwise, or due to an attempt at consistency.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does that make any sense? You're saying that the article should be kept because I've been too active in explaining the motivation for the deletion? That's got nothing to do with the merits of the article itself. You need to motivate your position that the article should be kept, and not merged to a summary article, by explaining how it passes the GNG. --Slashme (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Muceniece

Aina Muceniece (edit | 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 almost no actually RS about this person. The internet is full of garbage about her spewed by a company marketing a putative cancer drug See this SBM piece for this context. This page was created by a SPA account promoting RIGVIR and is full of unsourced promotional garbage about that putative drug and this person. I merged this to the RIGVIR article and had a bit of sourced content about her there; that was reverted and promotional unsourced garbage was restored here. We should delete and salt this so this dead woman's bio cannot be used to shill quackery any more. It is really disgusting, what is going on here. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. There is enough RS to write a decent biography. I have rewritten the article to get rid of the advertisement style. Thanks to the links provided above, I managed to find Zinātne un mana dzīve: 69 emeritēto zinātnieku atmin̦as un dzīvesgājums, volume 1 - a book in Latvian on 69 emeritus scientists and their biographies, amongst them the biography of Aina Muceniece. I agree that it is disgusting to mooch profit of Aina Muceniece's good intentions. RIGVIR as it is called, was developed during the Soviet occupation of Latvia, and in communist states there was no such thing as

♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 23:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello, a Latvian Wikipedian here: Muceniece's will legally has nothing to do with the state compensating this drug, the peddlers simply use the will for PR (cancer patients being treated for free sounds good). Latvian version of NHS decides which drugs to compensate, normally - based on efficacy and risk/benefit evaluation, but in this case it is not clear how this evaluation came to be positive, as there is very little research behind this drug. Source in Latvian about professional organisations who requested to remove Rigvir from the list of compensated drugs/drug register: http://www.delfi.lv/bizness/uznemumi/vairakas-arstu-organizacijas-prasa-izvertet-rigvir-kompensesanu.d?id=48494303 A shorter article in EN: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/latvia-to-review-state-compensation-for-rigvir-anti-cancer-drug.a223586/KC LV (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be a biography on Aina Muceniece, and my point was her good intentions. The reference is not written by drug peddlers. Whatever concerns the drug should be added to the article on RIGVIR. In my humble opinion.
♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 10:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree regarding intentions and biography, just thought I'd clarify the issue with the will, in case this subject is ever mentioned in the article by any wikipedians.KC LV (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have no idea whatsoever what her intentions were. This is exactly the kind of unsourced promotional garbage that led me to nominate this.Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we don't censor. Nothing is being censored. The question is whether this person is actually notable and if we are able to keep this article neutral. With the lack of high quality independent sources her notability is marginal at best. With the blatant promotional editing about RIGVIR it will be ongoing drain of community resources to keep this article decent and not disgusting promotionalism. So we should delete it. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The biography is a separate issue from the drug, and I'd suggest that the arguments be kept to the notability guidelines for a biography. At the moment there is no indications why you think the arguments present about her notability are wrong, or indeed how the sources would not qualify under GNG. Your arguments at the moment are essentially
WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Whether someone is trying to promote RIGVIR or not is irrelevant as far as her notability is concerned, otherwise you might argue that any person with any controversy attached should have their biography deleted, apparently it's impossible to keep such article neutral. If you want to present argument against RIGVIR, do it in that article, not here. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
They are not IDONTLIKE it - that is a misrepresentation. Her notability is marginal (this article depends almost completely on the hagiography at the Latvian Academy of Sciences which is all focused on her invention of RIGVIR) and this page has been hammered by promotional editing by people here to promote RIGVIR. RIGVIR is an unproven cancer treatment that is being promoted around the world and here in WP. Those are policy issues. Do not misrepresent me again. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You argument is that what a prominent national organization says about her is wrong, but that argument is not relevant when establishing notability. That they think she is notable however is relevant. A quick search would also reveals plenty of sources on her - e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], unless you are inclined to dismiss all Latvian sources as unreliable. Your argument is therefore still essential about the drug, and not based on notability guidelines which do indicate that she is notable according to a few criteria. Given that there are still recent science journal articles on the drug - [15], I'd suggest that you argue about the science on the RIGVIR article, and keep the argument out on the notability of a biography article. Hzh (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first one from Diena is a standard obituary mostly about RIGVIR
We already cite the 2nd link you put there.
the dzeltenais ref is hilarious - pop music gossip about some group named Colt writing a song about her (because of RIGVIR)
the ekonomika ref is not about her at all, but about a new guy taking over the foundation at the request of her family
the rekurzeme ref is, like the first one, a standard obituary mostly focused on RIGVIR. It is actually word for word, exactly the first one, published on another website
You have supported my argument with these refs and your behavior here, even down to citing the same reference republished elsewhere to make the subject seem more notable. It is going to be a tremendous time suck to keep this article neutral and the subject is marginally notable at best.
and btw the relevant pubmed search for MEDRS sources about RIGVIR is this - and yields one ref from a marginal journal. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has obituary been considered unreliable sources? I thought the song one is amusing too, but then when someone unrelated writes a song about you, you have probably achieved some kind of significance. You haven't really address the notability issue, unless you want to rewrite
WP:ANYBIO, or suggest that Latvian national awards should be disregarded. It's odd that you suggest there is only one review, since I have found others, e.g. [16] which says Rigvir has been approved for treatment of melanoma in Latvia since 2009 (other reviews however merely cite the references). Given that two of latest journal articles were published in February 2018, it would be surprising if you can find review article on those. These articles do suggest research is still ongoing, therefore it's not something on which opinion is settled as you seem to think it is. Nevertheless, whatever the scientific opinion may be, it has nothing to do with the biography. Hzh (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You have misrepresented me again. I never -- never -- said that an obituary is an unreliable source. I am not responding to you further as you are just cluttering this discussion with nonsense.

Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only that you appear to argue that there are not enough reliable sources - There are almost no actually RS about this person. There are enough valid sources already given in the article to satisfy
WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Further comment - it appears the objectionable material on RIGVIR have been since expunged - since this article is not about RIGVIR, I propose we keep rigvir mentions out of it, and remove the article for deletion tag. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 14:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Muceniece received the Cross of Recognition, so to Latvians she is not marginal. Whatever happened to RIGVIR after Muceniece died is irrelevant to her biography (articles on the Foundation and it's President). The article has four RS, two of them in English and two in Latvian (actually three, when counting LAoS). The one from Zemgales Ziņas is an obituary, so we got that covered. The other one from Dienas Bizness is an interview with Muceniece. The latter confirms many of the statements from the Latvian Academy of Sciences' website, and has some more material to expand the article on her career. I think one should be very careful identifying RS from Latvia, since some of the "tabloid" websites have no scruples.
    ♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes it is clear she is lionized in Latvia and that appears to be entirely because of RIGVIR - and nobody knows if that is a real cancer treatment or not. The company shilling RIGVIR has absolutely pinned the drug to her and mythologized her. Her actual notability by Wikipedia standards is very unclear. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may appear so in hindsight. Muceniece did fieldwork through her entire career, and she was a wellknown and respected scientist/medical worker in the former USSR. She worked as a consultant at the most well established hospitals in Riga, hospitals that had high reputations in the former Soviet Union. This was most likely also taken into consideration when she was awarded the Cross of Recognition. Even though it will take me some time to find a RS on that.
♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
We have no perspective other than hindsight. She is a historical figure now and reliable, independent, high quality sources about her are sorely lacking. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She was awarded the Cross of Recognition in 2005. The perspective was different then. We have four sources on her life, sources that are accepted on any other biography of Latvians.
♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
We have some sources that are mostly hagiographic, weak, focused on a drug that may or may not work, and very very local. N is not slam dunk. In my nomination I said that N is marginal. If it were not for the promotional pressure i would not have nominated this; it probably would have been OK. But a subject this marginal where we have a continuous history of efforts to skew it, is not worth maintaining. That is the deletion argument. I get it that Latvians who see her as a hero would not see it that way. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not marginal as far as
WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Hzh (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I will respond to you one last time. 1) Please be aware that people get emotional at AfDs, and you are obsessing over my responses here and behaving in ways that may have consequences for you. Do not misrepresent me again. If you misrepresent me again, I will seek an IBAN. You have provided all the diffs that I need to get it. 2) With regard to health and medicine in Wikipedia, you have now written twice that it " is still being studied". If a drug has not been shown to be safe and effective, that is the status in Wikipedia. Period. We don't hype drugs in development - -we don't say anything like "it might work but more research is needed and is being done" or edit along those lines - MEDMOS specifically says that we do not say "more research is needed" as this is true of everything in medicine. My editing about health and medicine is dead-on mainstream in Wikipedia; i am not pushing any POV but rather following the norms about medicine in Wikipedia. Many people come here to try to hype drugs, (many!) and when they do we revert them and if they persist they end up indefinitely blocked for PROMO. Bottom line: we differ on whether this article should be kept or deleted. That's OK. But back off from me already. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a biography article, judged on criteria for a biography. Hzh (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Griot (rapper)

Griot (rapper) (edit | 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: tag added regarding dubious notability in 2012 and he has not become any more notable since. Google Search provided little info of use or value. Quis separabit? 20:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 20:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Karma is a witch

Karma is a witch (edit | 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 believe audio podcasts are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet GNG. This podcast recived some press coverage like this but I am afraid its not enough. Google searches doesn't produce any substantial information about the podcast as well therefore I can't see its significance.. Maybe

WP:TOOSOON? Saqib (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 18:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak*KeepNeutral, potentially neutral. "audio podcasts [...] unless they meet GNG" - that doesn't really make any sense, they are just as eligible (or just as not) as other things. In any case, I would argue that both the Indian Express and News9, which while I can't find it in its own right, shows up in multiple places, including in non-youtube duplicate sites. I will do a bit more consideration of News9 later tonight, which will settle me to either Keep/Weak Delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Can you please share with me the link to coverage in News9? --Saqib (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I'm not comfortable saying any of the videos I've seen aren't coming from the youtube ones. Assuming no amazing forgeries, they are coming from
TV9 (Kannada) - an English channel in Bangalore, detail on their establishment here. They clearly exist, I can't make guesses on things like bias, they are very far from a smooth established set-up, but that's hardly a sin. It will be a weak source at best, whether it's sufficient to go with the current source to tip it off delete I'm not sure. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Nosebagbear: I would say the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Saurabh Vaibhav

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

Completely unreferenced article about a "music directing duo", whose only discernible claim of notability is that they and their work exist. As always, every musician or group of musicians is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to provide cursory verification that they exist -- they have to pass an

reliable source coverage about them to base the article on, before a Wikipedia article becomes earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 17:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 17:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Soft Delete Fails SIGCOV. Interesting case because the movie they composed the song for is one of the highest grossing Indian movies of 2018 but there is no coverage on them and hence not worthy of a Wiki page Globe2trotter (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Ben Yitzhak

Elisha Ben Yitzhak (edit | 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 WP:RS to establish notability. I have also AfD'd International Biennale Artists the group he founded for the same reasons. NY Arts Magazine is a known pay-to-play vanity publisher that closed in a scandal: [18] Theredproject (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 18:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 18:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MapTiler

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

Interesting as this software is to me, I am not seeing evidence of any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent on the subject. There's a mention or short paragraph here and there, documentation pages mentioning it, but nothing that would be considered significant. The mentions suggest a wide recognition but that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, unfortunately. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability, with (among other reasons) no results from a Google News search and just passing references on Google Scholar. The sources I have checked just mention MapTiler in passing. Swissarmysalad (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoxLunch

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

Doesn't seem to meet the new requirements of

WP:NCORP. The coverage I can find is just routine churnalism about store openings. SmartSE (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McCulloch (ice hockey)

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

Player fails

WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dodge (Illinois)

Jim Dodge (Illinois) (edit | 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. Politician of local significance do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements on their own. Upon review, Jim Dodge does not meet any other notablity criteria. Thus, I am nominating the article for deletion (Revised--Mpen320 (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cooper

Phil Cooper (edit | 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 and there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't meet

WP:MBIO. KingAndGod 17:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence King (businessman)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are short, fluff PR articles. reddogsix (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't comply with WP:BIO. It really lacks reliable sources in my opinion. Maybe if the content would be reorganised and if there would be more reliable sources to be added, it would be alright to have its own article. But for now, my vote is for it to be deleted. Romrom9 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite creator's claim, this is promotional (G11) and as Deb remarks, there is no credible claim for otability either (A7). Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slimeyard slimes

Slimeyard slimes (edit | 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 verifiable notability, with the only reference being an external link to the online shop; seemingly created as promotion by a possibly closely affiliated user ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audre Vysniauskas

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

Not notable. Single potential reliable source, Computer Graphics World and an archive of subject's old website. Fair bit of completely unsourced information. Vexations (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

List of mayors of West Lafayette, Indiana

List of mayors of West Lafayette, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing this nom for @

chatter) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - I think
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING covers this best. This is an unnecessary content fork of content with good sources could maybe be in the settlement article. It wasn't before. But...there aren't good sources. The list is very incomplete. We don't really need a list of mayors article for a city of 45,000. We certainly don't need a partial list. John from Idegon (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: We have many "list of mayors" articles. Peruse Category:Lists of mayors, you could spend hours upon hours just to get a feel for the extent of our coverage. I was easily able to add some cites to this one, and I am sure this could be expanded (e.g., a column on notable accomplishments of particular mayors). The idea that "we don't need a list of mayors article for a city of 45,000" has no persuasive weight, in my opinion. However, I can understand that the mere list without citation looks spare and to some editors that invites an AfD; however, I think it only needs a little help like a Charlie Brown Christmas tree. Surely a list of mayors could fit in the city article itself (or some other branch article from the city article) if not this article.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As stated above, Wikipedia has a wide array of cities in which the list of mayors has been added. West Lafayette is a rather influential city in the state of Indiana, and as such this meets notability guidelines, it just needs work. SuperChris (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While none of the mayors may be notable themselves, there's enough coverage of the position for the list to pass notability guidelines. SportingFlyer talk 18:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I think this article should be merged into West Lafayette, Indiana. Of the articles regarding cities with similar populations, a large majority of them do not have a lists of mayors separate from the city article. In fact, if my research is correct, most of the city articles with a population similar to West Lafayette did not have a mention of past mayors at all, whether in the city page or on a separate article. With this in mind, I don't believe that West Lafayette's former mayors are important enough to warrant a separate article. However, I think that this page's information is notable enough to be merged into the article for West Lafayette, and that it could be merged in without detracting from the page. Bedfordres (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There would be sufficient coverage to keep and maintain a list of mayors of most (if not all) incorporated places. --Enos733 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to West Lafayette. As long as they're properly referenced so that we can
    verify that the information is accurate, lists of cities' mayors are not an invalid or unreasonable thing for us to maintain — their notability or non-notability as individuals has a bearing on whether they should have standalone biographical articles about them or not, but is not relevant to the includability of a list of their names. So the only real question here is whether this needs to be its own standalone article, or whether they should be listed in the city's article instead — and with just nine mayors listed, which is not enough to overwhelm the city's not overly long article, I'm of the view that listing them in the city's article should be enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge Short enough list that it will fit comfortably in the main article. Reywas92Talk 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main town article - the list is valuable and encyclopedic, but does not merit a separate article.
    0612 10:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Imran Hasan

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

So the article claims the subject has written biographies in Urdu language on different personalities from India so I suppose there should be at least an entry in local language Wikipedia - there is none yet. Infact his entry was deleted from Urdu WP a few days ago [19] Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance, which means he basically fails to meet GNG. He was given an award by Bihar Urdu Academy but its not a notable or significant award.

The page was created by User:Sweety Hasan so I assume the subject is the creator but I'm not sure. Saqib (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost certainly autobiographical advert without any sourcing or indication of Notability. I'd have gone G11. KJP1 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puneett Chouksey

Puneett Chouksey (edit | 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:ACTORBIO. Apparently some minor roles in TV drama series and nothing major.

Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance which means basically fails to meet GNG as well.

For what its worth, the page was apparently created by the subject himself (look at the username of the creator) Saqib (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many articles of actor in many different countries which have similar to this, but why only my article was nominated for deletion? I think that is unfair. Puneett Chouksey (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr . Ikram Ullah Khan

Dr . Ikram Ullah Khan (edit | 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 professor does not appear to easily pass professor test and basic GNG.. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.. The cited sources does not discuss the subject directly and in detail. This page contains too much original research and is essentially promotion for the subject. GNG says we need "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Unfortunately based on the cited and available RS, a standalone BLP cannot be created.

For what it's worth, apparently the subject himself created this page (look at the username of the creator). Saqib (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I warned the author with {{
    WP:NPROF. I would be swayed if there were a significant award, but in the list on the article there is nothing significant. 1/4 of it is attendance/participation certificates. This does nothing to support notability. The "Shield" interested me, but I came up with nothing on that as well. Searching Google Scholar came up with two other professors, but not him. Ok, he's a dermatologist. Ok, he's real. But, notable? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Georgia Ferrer

Georgia Ferrer (edit | 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 independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, sir I will add some information about Georgia. 😊 User:QuesthasbTes 14:55, April 20, 2018 (UTC)

It is independent sources we need, not more information.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional character. Perhaps this would work better as a section in Ika-6 na Utos. Vermont | reply here 21:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn character, no other characters in the show have a fictional character page, refs in the article are primary or youtube, google and news showing nothing of note. Szzuk (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Husan Sharif

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

Only source is a dead link, no other sources found for either Husan Sharif or his ancestor Zotti Geddi Sharif. Yunshui 雲水 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Periya Mariamman Temple Vennandur

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

Very few hits in Google search, with most of them being unrelated. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass notability. MT TrainTalk 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Glover (ice hockey)

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

fails

WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Johnny A. Pineyro

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

Run-of-the-mill lawyer with a self-published book. No claim to encyclopedic notability. Madg2011 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk|c|em) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk|c|em) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep edited the article to include the point about him being part of the MDAF which according to the source is 1% of the lawyer community. Would pass GNG. I feel its an important point the author missed out on Globe2trotter (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after further edits to streamline the article. His notability meets the threshold for a community figure. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.
  • Keep - would pass WP:GNG. Has articles that focus on him. Can try finding more if needed. I didn't include more in the original draft since I thought it was sufficient. A famous lawyer in Florida and other states. Msclguru (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was previously linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabriela Costa and there are other very strong indicators of undisclosed paid editing in the article. The above keepers all look suspicious to me, so I am relisting until they are CUd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – At this time. Major claim to notability is that he is a member of the MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM. However, the only requirement to be part of the organization is a one-time fee of $1200 for application, certification and life membership. And the Applicants must have acted as Principal Counsel in at least one case which resulted in a trial verdict (and final judgment), award or settlement in the present value amount of One Million Dollars or more. I agree this is an achievement but not a encyclopedic notable achievement. ShoesssS Talk 14:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability claim might have had some weight if there was some sign (from media attention, etc.) that forum membership itself was notable. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Run-of-the-mill lawyer with a self-published book sums it up quite well. No notability here & no sufficient sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Herbert Koziol

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

Related to Herbert Schendl. See discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Herbert_Schendl,_Herbert_Koziol_et_al.. no indication of notability and author has obvious conflict of interest. Polyamorph (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 06:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 06:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:PROF #1, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" as demonstrated by sources, and PROF #5 "held a named chair appointment". The Festschrift currently cited shows some significant impact. Moreover, Otto Jespersen includes a section on Koziol and his Handbuch der englischen Wortbildunglehre in Jespersen's A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. I would guess more sources may be available in German. Also, I'm not certain whether the Austrian Academy of Sciences is selective in the way that The Royal Society is, but if so he also satisfies PROF #3. I assume, based on the current content of the article, that COI issues are surmountable. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as stated in the notability guidelines Academics/professors
    WP:NACADEMIC meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. And as Cnilep pointed out above Prof. Koziol definitively meets #1 - 3 and 5. ShoesssS Talk 15:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Raashi Bawa

Raashi Bawa (edit | 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 apparently this actress acted in only one Sitcom show which is not enough to pass

WP:TOOSOON apply. Saqib (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea. While redirects are cheap, but creating redirects on non-notable personalities involve the risk of page being recreated at some point later - which may go unnoticed. --Saqib (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now – I believe she may become more notable in the future, but she is not very notable at this time. CLCStudent (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Zac Young

Zac Young (edit | 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:GNG on the strength of media coverage, but none of the sourcing here counts a whit toward getting him there. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  samee  converse  08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a rudimentary
    WP:BEFORE comes up with lots of coverage in reliable independent sources of this pastry chef, inventor of the renowned PieCakein, celebrity chef, and culinary businessman. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Mind Eraser

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

Article has multiple issues that have not been improved in the last seven years. The subject is not notable, there are no inline citations, the accuracy the of content is disputed, some text appears to be opinion. There are 27 coasters of this exact same model. The fact that four of them are or were named Mind Eraser is not worthy of a wiki page. —JlACEer (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ustani Jee

Ustani Jee (edit | 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 may be TOOSOON - there is one article from Dawn.com but one article is usually not enough for

WP:GNG Seraphim System (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep & Comment - there has been some amendment regarding citations and tweaking of content.  samee , Seraphim System, Quality is still lacking, though it would certainly serve fine as a stub. Sources are dedicated, fairly minimal (but beyond the bare characters, bit etc - i.e. there is significant coverage), can't speak to bias (though shouldn't matter in this sphere) and quality - but seems unlikely any media would just make it up.Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it contains very less information, it should be expanded i mean plot or nature of serial etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanamKhann (talk • contribs) 06:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Rock Boat

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

Article has no sources besides rockboat.com. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, 3 refs have been added to the article. Szzuk (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep- sorry, I went to the page from here, so I should have tagged that I added a couple of refs. I've just now used the NY Times link (probably the most reliable I've found) to support certain parts of the history section that it also covers, but there are some other parts of it that could use better refs if they're found. Personally I would say it is Keep now, but want to see if my sourcing stands up sufficiently. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have opted for Keep, since I think there is a minimal level of acceptable refs Nosebagbear (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeff Schultz (actor)

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

Minor actor and writer, without proper sourcing. Appears to fail GNG and NACTOR. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and flag for cleanup, or redirect to
    Genie Award nomination as a screenwriter — this does need improvement, absolutely, but actually having a shortlisted nomination for a country's top level film award is an automatic notability pass in and of itself. I'll grant that not everybody else whose name appears in Canadian Screen Award for Best Screenplay has an article yet, mainly because I'm the only person actually undertaking any serious attempt to work on the problems with our historical CFA→Genie→CSA coverage, but everybody whose name appears in that list must be either a blue link or a potential future blue link. There can be no exceptions where a person who has a Genie nomination is permanently off limits as an article topic, because the nomination itself is grounds for inclusion right on its face. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Real weak. I'm sympathetic to Bearcat's argument, but absent any sort of reliable, independent sources about Schultz, there's not much we can say about him in his own article. If coverage is largely due to his screenwriting for North of Pittsburgh, perhaps a redirect to that article until/unless sufficient sourcing is available? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. Article state at the time of nomination was "one of the oldest". Now it's the "the oldest", which as contributors have pointed out is a significant claim, backed up by citation. Another example of a

(non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Kyodong Elementary School

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

Fails

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have found a ref supporting claim of oldest school (see article - couldn't export a more reliable link, appreciation for any link-improvement). That along I would feel is sufficient to demonstrate notability, given the fairly lax nature towards schools. Some reasonable alumni, and there are some other articles, mainly on how its number of pupils has dropped rapidly, even compared to other SK schools.Nosebagbear (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "oldest elementary school" is a sufficient claim of significance. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Satya electoral trust

Satya electoral trust (edit | 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 lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 01:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is a donor to electoral parties in India, this wouldn't be a problem but there are loads of these see - [21] and why this one in particular is notable isn't established in my mind, although there are refs saying "Satya electoral trust" gave money x to party y on google. Szzuk (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we need significant media (not obligatory legal declarations, which would be OR) on it - being the biggest electoral trust in India would, I feel, be significant enough: if it can be proved. Also, it not having any internet presence seems either unlikely, odd or shifty (not that that's the article's fault). How do/would they function on such a scale while having no presence at all? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elections in India, not independently notable, but there could be a section on electoral trusts in general there if someone wants to write it. Szzuk (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Something like this would certainly qualify for an article if it could be
    primary sources, not notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise1st Australia

Cruise1st Australia (edit | 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 company that does not meet

WP:BEFORE searches, but this company also does not appear to meet notability standards. North America1000 08:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the citations are either OR or contingent on Cruise1st launching it and even if notability couldn't be inherited, there isn't any to inherit. There are a couple of mentions in articles about individual cruises but they are passing - there isn't much at all about the company itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we deleted the parent Cruise1st recently, not sure why we'd want a regional Cruise1st. Szzuk (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

2017–18 Basketball Champions League Qualifying rounds

2017–18 Basketball Champions League Qualifying rounds (edit | 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 not notable and is uncompleted and irrelevant. If we are not doing articles of the regular season groups with match details, it's absurd to do an specific article for the qualifying rounds. With the scores in the main article of the competition, as in the previous season, is just enough. Asturkian (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Hammy Havoc

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

Spam article. All substantive edits are by an editor with a name match for a music industry PR. Near-certain undisclosed paid editing. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't work in the music industry or in PR, I work in retail. There are several people with my name. Could you cite the source for where you found the matching name? I also haven't been paid to edit anything and have no connection to the subject. --Amy Mowatt (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 12:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vajja Venkata Giridhar

Vajja Venkata Giridhar (edit | 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 long list of filmography as per IMDb entry, but on a closer look, one finds that most of roles are minor. I did some Google searches and could not locate even trivial coverage in independent RS which indicates the subject does not meets basic GNG and obviously nowhere near to pass

WP:ACTORBIO. Any Telugu language editor may help us locate the coverage in Telugu language sources? Saqib (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 08:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 08:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I went through a large number of the films listed, and with only occasional exceptions, he wasn't listed in the cast list on Wiki. In the two films where he was listed, he was way down the order. I searched in various sources but couldn't find coverage. If someone better able than I is able to find suitable coverage, I'm happy to change my vote. In which case: ping me. Ross-c (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Seyedmeysam Agha Seyedhosseini

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

Notability H.Fatemi ♪ 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Never the Bride

Never the Bride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional and unsourced. I looked on the web and couldn't find any indepth independent sources on the band, only events they perform at. Please prove me wrong. GRuban (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate is starting to take shape of what is currently happening with the AfD discussion for Joshua Fried (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Fried) in that it's a subject/person accomplished enough that would probably merit an article but, surprisingly, lacks the requisite evidence to pass the wikipedia article threshold. Based on that it will probably get deleted but this may be one of those case studies of why WP guidelines could benefit from a serious re-evaluation of why some quite accomplished bands/people don't qualify for articles, but other of less accomplishment do. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is - how do we know? Without high quality independent sources, we're basically stuck with "this is what they say about themselves", which, I hope you can see, is less than ideal. --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Living Tree (song) -- This might help a bit, but the original by Never the Bride did not chart. The cover version by Shirley Bassey charted. Adding this to the Never the Bride article, as notable songwriting, can reinforce my own "Weak Keep" vote above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 08:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

DJ Wich

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

Not a notable DJ. Does not pass

unverifiable. KingAndGod 13:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources need examining
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

A.B. Shawky

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

Film producers, writers or directors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. the subject has produced only one notable film ( among a couple of non-notabe short films) which is not even released yet.

Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Look at that! I didn't knew his full name is "Abu Bakr Shawky". Thank you penning down his full name and for renaming the page. So as I said Google search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person under his abbreviated name "A.B. Shawky" but I can see some good coverage under this non-abbreviated name. However I'm still not convinced if he meets
Wikipedia:NotJustYet because he has received the coverage due to Yomeddine so WP:BIO1E apply here (perhaps) and in light of the recently findings, my second choice would be make redirection to Yomeddine. --Saqib (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is more a matter of registration than a critical evaluation. --Saqib (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeshiva University Medical Ethics Society

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

Student-run organization article that does not credibly state significance/notability as per

ping me. 04:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Initial contributor to the article was
ping me. 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 04:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris S. Sims (game designer)

Chris S. Sims (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems that there is very little information on the subject and the person just seems like someone that isn't notable.

haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 04:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 04:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete - Moving the article to a draft does not help the fact that sources don't really exist about him. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sources about him, for example [35] this listing of books that he is editor or co-editor. In addition, he is not a video-game designer, he is a pen and paper RPG and board-game designer. K-pachs (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable game designer. Link to D&D Rules Compendium, clearly edited by Chris Sims: Rules Compendium (Dungeons & Dragons Edition 3.5) I agree that there should be more references added, though.
Update: List on Amazon with all the books that he edited. Come on, this is impressive! Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... several of Sims' publications have unchallenged WP articles, but the author is not deemed worthy of his own WP article? --- Normosphere (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
^^^ 22:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Monster Manual, e.g., is definitely unchallenged. --- Normosphere (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
^^^ 13:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Wumbolo: Weird argumentation. In the, let's say, scientific realm it's no problem to have 5, 10, 15 co-authors or editors of a study or book. This is not about numbers. If the specific authors are relevant in the field, then why the heck not? But let's stick to the actual example (M.M.): There are multiple versions/issues of the book, and each has its own team of editors. All editors have careers and are more or less notable. Significance should be addressed for each individual. Concerning Sims: He is a known professional in game design and development, works/worked on notable projects for 2 of the biggest players (Wizards and Paizo) in the industry, is an award-winner, and is even known beyond his field (-> the arts; references are in the article). Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
^^^ 15:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Wumbolo: Oh, I see. Seems I misread the gist of your remark @ Normosphere... sorry! Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry that it's looking like I'm Sim's personal agent here... I really have no stakes in this, but it feels a bit strange. a) The Wizards RPG Team is quite clearly defined as Sims, Noonan and Schwalb. b) He has academic merits and is being referred to. c) Credible art institutions (like
Museumsquartier and Vienna Art Week bring him to Europe to create games-based art, and it's documented. d) Most RPG game designers (like Rob Heinsoo and Robert J. Schwalb) have comparable WP pages and have the same references as Sims (e.g. ENnie Awards, which got removed from the article). If Sims' notability is really challenged, then we really have to look at all the other RPG game developers as well. They are all creative people, but they are of course working within the realm of a brand like D&D, and those brands are interested in actually keeping the developers' names off their official pages to keep a monolithic face to the public. This is also a structural problem, that's I guess what I'm trying to say. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Best Role-Playing Game Supplement
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
Ed Greenwood, Sean K. Reynolds, Skip Williams, Rob Heinsoo
Wizards of the Coast
Mentioned by name.
But you may well be right, many of these people may not pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the books referenced in the article state him as the author, have a look at all the story writing for D&D and Paizo. But I'm reiterating my statement that this might be a massive structural problem hitting many creative people that work for corporations. It's a debate about authorship and recognition in the corporate sphere. (I sound like I'm working for a union, but I have to say this topic is close to my heart, as a creative worker myself.) Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right, but this is not the place to right corporate wrongs. And it does not matter if he is an author of a work, what matters is that if that authorship is notable. Now every time I looked at an award it did not mention him, I do not care why.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
jumping in: are you saying that only winning an award makes a game designer notable? ---- Normosphere (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, no I am saying that not being mentioned as winning an award fails verifabilty, and thus cannot be used to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have now checked a couple of sources that "discus his work", and either I have the wrong ones or it is a case of "They discus stuff he has worked on" (which is not the same thing). Notability is not inherited.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the one i added is about him. (games and simulation) ---- Normosphere (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was then one I was referring to, which does not contain a single instance of the word Sims. Please check the talk page of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which organisation does he work (rather then has done one work) for?Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paizo (Starfinder). MisterBrubaker (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh you meant worked as an illustration for RPG products.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And his artist invitation to Vienna. MisterBrubaker (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And which institution was that (and is it a job)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was an artist in residence, invited by
Museumsquartier in Vienna in autumn 2017. The link is already in the article. Don't understand why it's marked as not in citation given. Vienna Art Week featured one of his projects during the residency. [37] Here is another link on eSeL.at [38]. (I assume that's also the project that Trummel, Cosima is referring to. I can't help with verifying that link, though.) MisterBrubaker (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Clarification: with "work for" I mean "was invited by". MisterBrubaker (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the link does not use the word Awarded, which implies something that is not supported by the source. Also the Museum Quarter is not an institution, it is a geographical area that contains them (so it is hard to see how it can award anything). Indeed it may well be he was only invited for one week (and thus was not employed by them) as a visiting artist, or as a favour. The fact is the source does not explain what it was (or signifies). Many arts festivals invite people, that does not mean they have tenure (which is what is being implied here, a kind of tenure).Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can clear that up. Museumsquartier IS an institution (financed by the Austrian gov), it is the umbrella brand and organization of the area. It has a lot of budget and, among other projects, runs an artist in residence program. Artists get a stipend to come and work at Museusmquartier Q21 as part of the AiR program. ("Q21 hosts around 50 cultural initiatives, 9 Artists-in-Residence studios and an exhibition space. The creative space is spread across over 7,000 sqm.") Artist then collaborate with local events (like Vienna Art Week) to create work. In his case it was roleplaying performances. Here is some additional material I found that mentions or shows Chris Sims. [39] [40][41] MisterBrubaker (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is not how they describe themselves [42] they do not say they are an institution, but an area that encompasses them. It may well be like (say) convent garden market or a national heritage area, or maybe it is like the IWM, one institution spread over many venues. But we need a source saying what it is, and at this time they seem to say they are more like the first two, an areas that has many separate bodies within it (in the same way a city of culture is (for a year) an area that encompasses cultural activities, but is itself not a cultural institution). Nor do any of your new sources say that being a resident artist is a notable achievement.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First: Here is the description on TransArtist (art residency guide) with all the information I mentioned. This should count as a secondary reference, doesn't it? [43] Here is also a description on wien.info [44] I think it is important to say that this is an official program with a coordinator within MQ, and it is quite a privilege to be able to do this. Artists and researchers like
Jake Appelbaum have done this before.
Second: The English WP article about Museumsquartier is not covering any of this, nor how MQ is structured. The German one is better, with reliable sources (important part is the one about Betriebsgesellschaft, the factility and marketing organisation that also handles Q21 and the residency program). [45] MisterBrubaker (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Regarding the The Sabin, Philip. Simulating War: Studying Conflict through Simulation Games By. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 289 references seems to fake as well: Here is a reference for it:
<ref name="Sabin2012">{{cite book|author=Philip Sabin|title=Simulating War: Studying Conflict Through Simulation Games|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tU9mkcL2XjEC|accessdate=28 April 2018|date=26 January 2012|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-1-4411-8558-7|page=289}}</ref>
Page 289 does not mention Sims, nor his full name, nor the game mentioned in the lede. Page 289 is notes for chapter 1 of the book. So the ref is fake. Another fake ref. All in all, in the beginning it looked like Sims was notable, but as the Afd has progressed, there seems to be have been a concerted effort to build a consensus for notability where it doesnt exist. Fails
WP:GNG. Delete and Salt scope_creep (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
And there seems to be an aspect of
WP:CANVASSING going on. scope_creep (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 Courcelles (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California gubernatorial election, 2022

California gubernatorial election, 2022 (edit | 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:CRYSTALBALL (next election, in November 2018, has not occurred yet); while article is currently premature, can be recreated after then Mélencron (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - Looks like a speedy delete will be apropiate due to vandalism by the
WP:CIO creator of the page. Bohbye (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Brown (musician)

Nick Brown (musician) (edit | 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 doesn't meet upto the Wikipedia standard

talk) 01:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Cable 8 Productions

Cable 8 Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another student-run tv station with no notability. Only sourcing is the school's newspaper which clearly falls below the level of coverage required by

Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending - Currently this would be a delete, but with such a high quality article it would be a big hit to lose it - there's a few mentions in different bits (one of their former directors went viral for a while, some other general ones about student-run tv). Hopefully I, or someone else, can find just 1 or 2 decent sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual editors' assessments of whether the article is well-written or not are not relevant to whether the topic qualifies for a Wikipedia article or not — and we'll never mind that my assessment is that this is trending in an
    WP:GNG — but this is not, as its only citations are to one of the same university's other student media outlets and a press release from the university administration. These are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing that a topic is notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Biennale Artists

International Biennale Artists (edit | 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 WP:RS to establish WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. I looked, and all I could find were enwiki mirrors. Theredproject (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Andres Soriano College

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

Only mention seems to be on blogspot, no independant reliable sources nor any claim of notability. Fails the

WP:GNG Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SwoonXO

SwoonXO (edit | 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 website is unavailable - there's a domain parking page there now. ClickRick (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - SwoonXo web site stop operating. Fails

talk) 01:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ruffwear

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

    Seemingly non-notable company that possibly fails

    WP:NCORP guidelines. The company exists, but in-depth coverage about said company is lacking. Some news stories do cover the topic, but these take the form of product announcements or reviews that throw in a trivial mention of Ruffwear. Nothing exists that indicates how or why Ruffwear is individually distinct or notable when compared to similar companies, nor why the former's inclusion in an encyclopedia is warranted. In addition, (note the following point is more of an observation than a policy argument) the article was created by an editor (User:Ruffwear) with a clear conflict of interest. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lori Baratta

    Lori Baratta (edit | 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 notability. Sources are not reliable and are either affiliated pages, or general pages for companies she made art for. Appears to be an auto-biography or something close to it, due to the amount of detail included that is not found at sources (at least as far as I saw) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_20&oldid=1142617202"