Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 25 February 27 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José Carlos Moreno

José Carlos Moreno (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 voice actor who fails

WP:NACTOR. Not even listed in IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Aminem

Amin Aminem (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 rapper with no coverage in RS (per

WP:BEFORE) and current sources are nothing more than a single website with videos. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really doesn't seem like much here substantiating him as notable. Seems early career. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a cheesy advertisement of an unknown rapper. Nothing notable here at all. Has he hit any charts? Any hits under his belt? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Square of Nine

Square of Nine (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 not-notable combination of astrology and numerology to predict the stock market.

π, ν) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following article as it is on a very similar subject, by the same author, and has similar sources:

Hexagon Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. Non-notable promotional trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used the chart to calculate if the article would be deleted and the result was not favorable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has received notable coverage.80.111.42.187 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from the looks of the references, seems notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Setting aside the current content of the article (just a bunch of charts and tables), the sources I'm seeing are neither independent nor reliable. I don't see how this meets the general notability guideline, let alone the fringe one (relevant since we're talking about astrology and all). It could be redirected to William Delbert Gann#The Square of Nine and the Hexagon Chart. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the same for the Hexagon Chart. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A link to a google search isn't useful. Just for fun, I looked at the first two results when I do that search (I hope everybody realizes that different people may get different results from the same search). The first was, The Book of Yantras, published by
WP:N (or pretty much anything else). I didn't check further down the list, but I expect more of the same. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not notable. bd2412 T 02:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faircoin

Faircoin (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 cryptocurrency; article is promotional. There is possibly enough Spanish coverage to meet GNG, but spot-checks suggest it's all coverage in the context of discussing

π, ν) 21:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm the author of the article (really translated from :es and only covered the template details). As I understand, there are two arguments against my first article, to delete it:
  1. Not notable
  2. Promotional - covers Enric Duran
After give an answer to these points, I would like to state that instead of proposing to deletion, it could be fine, in order to achieve more quality participation, to show me how to make the article better. Now, since I'm newbie and I don't know all the policies, excuse me if I don't cite policies properly, and please show me if I miss something. Also excuse my nonnative english.
  1. Against Not notable argument, Power~enwiki specifies that is only notable because related to Enric Duran, but not as a cryptocurrency. Of course, Enric Duran is an important part of FairCoin and to mention him in that article is a must, but FairCoin doesn't inherite notability by Enric Duran. As seen in the references part of the article, there's a lot of coverage of FairCoin by itself, of reliable and independent sources. If more references are needed to prove this (which will surprise me), just tell me instead of proposing deletion.
  2. Against Promotional, covering Enric Duran, I would say first that if the community thinks this, I would remove the content needed about Enric Duran, instead deleting the entire article. If promotional, as promoting a cryptocurrency, I win nothing if people are interested or not in the topic (evident), so is not selfpromotional. There are also no marketing content, and there's no propaganda and no attempts to convince to another opinion: the article is just useful as it provides information of a particular and notable cryptocurrency.
At last, as counterargument, I will cite the essay of
assumes good faith. Desatonao (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Wall

Tod Wall (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)

Serving as interim

π, ν) 21:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I misread that; I've fixed the nom statement.
π, ν) 03:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bandera

Peter Bandera (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)

Found a cover on "Hola" magazine (which I can't tell if it's real or not), and an IMDB profile showing a list of credits (mostly as producer) for relatively unknown films. Haven't been able to find anything else (in English or Spanish) that would remotely meet any of Wikipedia's notability requirements. London Hall (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are accomplishments listed here, but the page is light on for references. He doesn't have his own page on IMDB, it points to the IMDB page for Vaitiare Bandera Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With very little references available and the amount of volume of specific information and details, it looks like either Peter Bandera actually wrote the article himself or a person very close to him. How else would any average wikipedia editor know this much stuff on an individual without independent references? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeviChil

DeviChil (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 can barely find any reliable sources discussing this article's subject - I already looked into it back when I worked on the article on

WP:GNG. Alexandra IDVtalk 20:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The IP user who added the article is also editing a lot of nonsense into other pages. Some of that is on the DeviChil page. For example, there's no known history of that series ever being aired on English television in Canada, the United Kingdom or the United States. Just made up garbage.Damnedfan1234 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alexandra IDVtalk 19:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WizzolX

WizzolX (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 concerns. No references to reliable independent sources, and none found.

π, ν) 20:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but stub and rewrite from scratch.. If maintaining a NPOV article proves impossible than the next discussion will undoubtedly reach a different conclusion.

Spartaz Humbug! 05:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Desiré Dubounet

Desiré Dubounet (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 meet

π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I've never heard of her before, but after some googling it seems she passes the criteria of "must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Based on these, she is notable (although I'm not going to miss the article if it gets deleted). – Alensha talk 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable fraudster. Plenty of coverage in English and foreigb media sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of RS there establishing notability as a fraud. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is written as a defence of the subjects work, and clearly fails NPOV guidelines. We lack the level of good coverage needed to create a truly balanced article. When articles get into special pleading, and the subject is a living person, the only option is to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be true, but that doesn't make the subject any less notable. It should be re-written to follow NPOV, not deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well supported by reliable sources and quite notable. There may be a NPOV problem, but this can be fixed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just about enough substantive reliable secondary sources - specifically the Seattle Times article (regional press but
    WP:RS) and the "Science Left Behind" book, published by PublicAffairs, a reputable publisher. The federal court case, though a primary source, is worth noting as well. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Good News Newspapers

Good News Newspapers (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)

Badly sourced article about a term of questionable real-world usage. I can't find any reliably sourced examples of this existing as a term for a class of thing, as this article describes -- all I can find is examples of religious newspapers using "Good News" as their name. And that's largely what the purely

primary sources here are showing as well: two of the four are using "Good News" as their name, and the other two are papers which are doing the same sort of thing while using different terms for it other than "good news" per se (such as "positive news"). But newspapers' own mission statements aren't adequate sourcing for an article about the thing those newspapers describe themselves as being -- reliable source coverage would have to analyze this term as a thing, independently of the newspapers calling themselves this, before it would qualify for an article. But that's exactly the sort of coverage I'm not actually finding anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trudi Ames

Trudi Ames (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 very minor roles, not seeing how this can meet

WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created the article so I suppose I should chime in. Wikipedia's notability standards say multiple significant roles in notable films. I suppose this largely turns on how you parse and define the words significant and notable. Bye Bye Birdie is certainly notable, I don't think anyone would dispute that. Gidget Goes To Rome is perhaps not notable on it's own, but the Gidget series/franchise is certainly notable and this movie is part of that franchise. As to whether the roles were significant, that is a little more subjective. She was uncredited in that film, but she gave a memorable enough performance to receive a promising newcomer award (there was a source attached to that statement but it has since been deleted, I do not know why. I think most people who have seen the film will remember her role, and in the stage version, it was credited supporting role (see wikipedia's page about the stage version). I cannot claim to have seen Gidget Goes to Rome, but I did see the trailer. It is billed as a friends "beach party" type movie, and she plays one of the main character's two best friends. She is shown in the trailer and her character is reference by name in the trailer. So there you have it, two arguably significant roles in two films whose notability is probably not in question. When I started the article, I took multiple to mean more than one. I took significant to mean memorable, not necessarily a starring or leading role. If people disagree with the notability of the films or the roles, or feel two is not enough, then of course, delete the article. I had hoped when I started the article that others would help it grow, but I must admit, it is still a stub after 7 years and doesn't look a whole lot different than it did a few years ago.

talk) 03:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've found some coverage of her and she also had a role in some TV sitcoms. See the sources in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per sources added by Megalibrarygirl. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Beta Phi

AfDs for this article:
Sigma Beta Phi (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 marked as delete from 2014 AfD, recreated by original creator in 2017 but still no indication of notability outside regional/personal sources. Once deadlinks removed, only sources on page are affiliated with the org. Potential for speedy delete under G4 as the page has been deleted twice already, once in 2012 and again in 2014. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 19:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable; only one chapter, and no independent sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They did open a second chapter, but what you said still remains true. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 22:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 05:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Queen's Bands

Queen's Bands (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 university marching band, the article has longstanding issues concerning lack of citations, the promotional nature of the article, and notability Nixon Now (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems the band was recently suspended for being offensive to women [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Recently" being 8 years ago. If that's the only notable thing about the band in the past 113 years I don't think a Wikipedia article is justified. Nixon Now (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I am not saying for sure that's only newsworthy thing it ever did, but I can't see anything else other than a few "x played at x, acts included x, x, x etc" type reports, certainly not significant coverage. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Leto

Frank Leto (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 subject who fails

WP:SIGCOV sources, and a good-faith search for some turned up nothing noteworthy. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Granting the assumption that the subject meets GNG, can you make a case for it passing WP:BIO, which an article needs to fulfill? There seems to be no information about the article subject that is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Also, the article was nominated for deletion prior to it being cleared of copyrighted material.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to imply that
WP:GNG. That I know isn't true. If a subject meets the GNG it should be kept. So to rephrase your argument so that it makes sense, you should say "Granting the assumption that the subject meets GNG, I am withdrawing my nomination."192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You may need to take a closer look at my statement. Quoting directly from the text of
WP:BASIC) but also any other relevant, additional policies. This is pertinent to this discussion as myself and several other editors have deputed the idea that the article in question passes either GNG or BIO due to a lack of significant sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You need to take a closer look at your own statement. You originally claimed that the article needs to satisfy
WP:GNG and it's not necessary for it to satisfy BIO. Now I don't know what you're claiming but clearly the goalposts have been moved. Anyway, the part of BIO that you quote cuts against your argument. All it says is that BIO is not dispositive. It's true that GNG is not dispositive, but meeting it is certainly sufficient for keeping an article, even if it's not necessary. In any case, myself and several editors have disputed the idea that the article in question fails to pass both GNG and BIO. That's why we're having this discussion, obviously.192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Citing of other similar articles is not a viable way of establishing notability per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, it's not a policy. It's a little underhanded of you to cite it as if it were dispositive (if you're doing it on purpose). In fact, in deletion discussions noting that a lot of similar articles exist is a perfectly valid way to establish notability. If the type of article weren't notable why haven't all the others been deleted? For instance, shopping malls. These articles are never deleted, and the only argument for that outcome is that we never delete shopping malls, which is logically related to claiming that there are a lot of articles on shopping malls that haven't been deleted.192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that a discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed conflict of interest edits by User:BrandingGuy13 regarding possible conflict of interest issues for the user BrandingGuy13. That discussion identifies this article as one of the articles that may be related to the possible conflict of interest. Another related article, Bryn Mawr Trust, has been deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck second vote by User:BrandingGuy13.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we strike the older !vote and assume the editor changed their mind? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The Campfire Song

The Campfire Song (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 song from a TV series. The page was deleted via PROD long ago ("nn, Unencylopaedic song from a children's cartoon only sung once through the entire series" nominated by a long-gone editor). It was recently recreated. It was promptly PRODed (" Non-notable song, per

WP:RS coverage." by User:Narky Blert). This second PROD was rightly declined per process, so here we are at AFD. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note, I named the recent nominators so they would be pinged as being involved in this situation; first article creator is long gone; I alerted the new-version creator to this discussion via that editor's talkpage). DMacks (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to redirect and protect in the light of subsequent arguments. Narky Blert (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Move' to
    The Camping Episode. I don't know much about SpongeBob, but within the community this song is one of the better known moments. Perhaps the episode deserves its own page? Alexschmidt711 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    WP:SALT strategy too, but I do not know how that works in relation to redirects. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Protection freezes the contents (or lack thereof) of the article-title. Salting is the special name for doing that when no such article exists, which therefore prevents its creation (including "creation as a redirect"). Alternately, the redirect could be created and then protected, which would prevent it from being converted into an actual article. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. My vote will remain "Redirect" and if that turns out to be the ultimate result of this AfD, I would suggest some sort of protection to prevent reversal of the redirect, though I will leave it to you guys to select the best technique. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:GNG. But a redirect is preferable to deletion. I don't think there is anything worth saving in this article: leave that cruft at Encyclopedia SpongeBobia (where I now realize it was copied from). --Animalparty! (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red State Update

AfDs for this article:
Red State Update (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)

Deleted in 2007, recreated three months later, tagged for notability for the past year. Fails

WP:PRIMARY variety, such as the HuffPo link which is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/red-state-update/. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 05:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ashwini Chandrashekar

Ashwini Chandrashekar (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 actress with little to no coverage in rs I can find. The sources included in the article, at best, are passing mentions if they mention her at all or otherwise unreliable and not coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has two leading roles in notable films as confirmed by reliable sources so passes
    WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Also, the editor is appealing his block Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The editor is appealing his block so its a bit early to jump in Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their appeal doesn't have any bearing on my nomination and I still don't think this person is notable, TOU violations aside. If you believe this person to be notable, please provide the sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lapidus

Norman Lapidus (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)

Failure of

Rusf10 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article with no meaningful claim of notability, with minimal sourcing in the article and little more to be found in the search required by
    WP:BEFORE. Being a mere councilmember is an insufficient claim of notability, unlike being a mayor or being elected to countywide office. Nor is there a logical merge target that might have been considered as an alternative to deletion. I'm sure that all of these considerations are taken into account in *ALL* articles nominated and that we aren't nominating articles for deletion out of pure spite. But in this case there is rare agreement. If only that might one day be reciprocated. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Smalltown municipal councillors are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability under
    WP:NPOL #2 as being significantly more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iqama (Saudi Arabia)

Iqama (Saudi Arabia) (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 can't see why a residence permit is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article, even if it had sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every town, county/state, country has parking permits, there's nothing at all notable enough for this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a parking permit, it's the Saudi Arabian residence permit for foreign citizens. It's basically a
    Green Card but for Saudi Arabia rather than the USA. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Does not meet
    WP:GNG plus is poorly sourced. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to

(non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Periathalai

Periathalai (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)

Its a Duplicate page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periyathalai Perumalism Chat 16:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, so all that's needed is to Redirect to Periyathalai, you didn't need to come here to do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. There has not been any discussion here, but the DAB page seems so unnecessary that I am going to IAR to a small extent and delete to save everyone time and trouble. If there's objections, I can refund it, and we can have another AfD. Vanamonde (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Gravity gun (disambiguation)

Gravity gun (disambiguation) (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)

Falls under

WP:TWODABS even though it's arguably not even a case of that, as the entries are not even title matches to the title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close - AfD is not for draftspace. (And the article gets a speedy delete as hoax.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Allosaurus lapworthi

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

    Hoax Ozarcusmapesae (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    But why did you create a hoax article? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
      Talk to my owner:Online 16:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Malik Mohammad Jehangir

    Malik Mohammad Jehangir (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 businessman. Fails

    WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete namechecking in few news stories for being chairman of the Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan.. fails to meet GNG. --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Ali Jehangir Siddiqui

    Ali Jehangir Siddiqui (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 non-notable article. Fails

    WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week Keep while there is no in-depth coverage on the subject but he was appointed as Special Assistant to the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the federal cabinet, with the status of Minister of State. --Saqib (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, notable at least politically, per Saqib. Mar4d (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    AutoWed

    AutoWed (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)

    Trivial coverage. Fails

    WP:N. Störm (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Just another of the hundreds of ways a vending machine has been modified into. The introduction automatic wedding machine is both confusing and hilarious. MT TrainTalk 16:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not notable; sources contain passing, trivial coverage. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not notable, just passing mentions in the references, and appears more like a joke than a real article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sikandar Ali Jogi

    Sikandar Ali Jogi (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)

    Nothing special. Might be related to the creator of article (

    WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - lots of trivial mentions, but no significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 05:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    List of General Caste in Sikhism

    AfDs for this article:
    List of General Caste in Sikhism (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 don't see any source discussing the topic.General caste=Forward castes i.e. castes not eligible for the special-affirmative-action-schemes by Govt. of India. ~ Winged BladesGodric 15:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Right after the last AFD that was closed as no consensus the article was blanked of content with just a no verification comment. I have restored the content that was there at the point of the AFD closure. No comment on the quality of the content. ~ GB fan 16:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @GB fan:--Hmm...In absence of any reliable source, there is no prohibition on pruning even to the extent of blanking.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this AFD a few days ago when a comment showed up on a user talk page I was watching. I refrained from commenting because I don't know enough about the topic to say one way or another whether the nominator's rationale is valid (although it seems clear that the same is true for the only "keep" !vote so far, who only !voted based on a keepist principle rather than any specialist understanding that led to the conclusion that the OP has misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented the topic). But I gotta say,
    Wikipedia policy. When someone blanks unsourced content rather than simply tagging, it is assumed that the blanker has read other sources that appear to contradict the content, or just knows from personal experience that the content is wrong, and both are valid reasons for blanking unsourced content. (Adding unsourced content based on one's personal experience is obviously a violation, but that's not what happened.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    1. The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies
    2. Sikhs in Britain
    3. Routledge Handbook of Religions in Asia
    • Mr Davidson doesn't appear to have improved his understanding of caste. Which of those sources refer to General Castes? The article is not about OBCs or SCs/STs, which are the other two government classifications, and the government provides no list of castes that it considers to be General/Forward. Since the government provide no such list, we would have to employ deduction and that is original research. - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a detail. The sensible way forward is to list all the notable castes within the Sikh community. The ones which get government preferment can be marked and the others are then implicit. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a detail. Any caste could contain at least one person who is Sikh; government preferment is not a constant across the country (ie: a caste can be preferred in one area, preferred differently in another; and not preferred at all in a third). The rules of preferment change regularly and are themselves ambiguous due to issues of identifying the numerous names used for the same castes and because sometimes the same name is used for very different castes. Andrew, we've been through this time and again across numerous AfDs and you still do not get it. Either please take the trouble to listen and learn or don't bother disrupting with ill-advised thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) In fact, I am going to go further because I think Andrew is becoming a real problem with his contrarian positions in AfDs and RfAs. Despite the gap of umpteen years since the last discussion for this list, it has still not been sourced and least of all by the one person who really insisted that it should remain, ie: Andrew. So how about you put up or shut up on this occasion? The issue of the caste system in Sikhism is already covered at various articles but trying to create a list of General Castes in Sikhism simply is not feasible and he hasn't shown it to be so either at the last AfD or at any time since. We've got to get a grip on such extreme inclusionism achieved through misplaced and/or misguided wikilawyering. - Sitush (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking of improving the page this time around. But first we require enforcement of
      WP:BLANK which states "Repeated, unnecessary page blanking may get a user blocked indefinitely." I'm not volunteering my effort if Sitush is going to engage in blatant disruption and edit warring again. Andrew D. (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • The sequence of events is
    1. The AfD is closed as "no consensus"
    2. 5 mins later, Sitush blanks the page, leaving no content
    3. another editor reverts this blanking as vandalism
    4. Sitush repeats the page blanking
    5. The blanking was reverted again and that's where we are now
    Andrew D. (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming back to the most-important issue at hand, how do you equate "Important Sikh occupational castes" with
      Original research?!~ Winged BladesGodric 12:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • And yet again you lie. Your sources do not discuss the matter at hand and you forget that N, OR and V are being rolled out against you. Disagree with me? Start using the sources, then: you've had several years already. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. It's pretty clear Andrew Davidson that you've pigeonholed yourself with your narrow article scope (and title). You've identified that there is a disparity between the teachings in Sikhism and the reality of the caste system. Maybe that's a starting point for a prose article instead of a list, i don't know. All i'm seeing is a dead horse getting beaten here though. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete-The first thing that strikes me is the inconsistency caste ≈ Hinduism so I am not getting where Sikhism enters the picture. If the title suggest that the people had a certain caste before changing over to Sikhism even then it does not merit mentioning. Also General caste is a generalization at its best which seeks to encompass all castes major or minor which do not fall into any of the governments benefit schemes. There is no formal definition of this General caste making the scope of this article truly ambiguous and thus gives a scope for pov warriors to exploit this article and add incorrect stuff — 
      Rdl 14:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • It doesn't. There is no list. I am getting really fed up of the Article Rescue Squadron people here: clueless, as at every past caste-related discussion. See my first two threaded replies to Andrew Davidson above. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't tagged for Article Rescue, that not why I'm here. And I simply assumed if they list some caste and their religion, they'd surely list the others somewhere as well. That's not being clueless, just common sense, their census should record this data somewhere. Dream Focus 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't. How many more times must I say this? You're just demonstrating some weird sort of systemic bias, making assumptions about how India should do things. If all you can do is speculate or produce irrelevant sources, as AD has done, then you're just wasting your own time and, worse, that of others. Please also note that the Indian reservation system is not, in the strictest sense, based on caste anyway. There are plenty of communities with reserved status who are not castes. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:TLDR for outside commenters to bother. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    If that is what they do then they should be banned from AfD because they're disrupting to make a point. Caste AfDs often attract little attention and that makes such actions particularly disruptive, as evidenced in the prior AfD for this list: it is too easy to get a no consensus outcome, regardless of how much I write. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Total nonsense. I thought I was being helpful here, pointing where people who wanted to spend more time searching about could find information if it existed. I did not say "Keep" at all. I do not auto-vote Keep, ever. Most of the articles tagged for ARS I never participate in at all. Kindly assume good faith and stop spreading the same ridiculous lies every chance you get. Dream Focus 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dream Focus: Re-read my comment. I never said you had !voted "keep" in this AFD, and in fact in two out of three of my comments I specifically stated that there had only been one explicit "keep" !vote (not yours). What I said about you was that you tend to auto-!vote "keep" in a lot of AFDs, as can be seen in the evidence below:
    Evidence requested; evidence given.
    • here, you !voted based on a nonsense equation of Shakespeare's "Dark Lady" with the "Dark Lord" of modern fantasy fiction, then tried to justify yourself by doing a Google News search and linking the first source you found that used the two words in sequence, apparently without reading the source yourself;
    • here, you !voted "keep" but then when presented with the evidence decided to unilaterally delete everything in the article, rename it, change its focus to somehing completely different, and then pretended the article had always been about that while never withdrawing your initial !vote apparently on principle.
    • That's just the last month: while looking around to see if you had ever gotten in trouble for copyright violation before, I noticed that your user page is linked to from well over 10,000 WP:-namespace pages, many of them AFDs; I checked a few (nowhere near them all, mind) to see if you had defended any of the articles against copyvio claims, and while I didn't find any of that, I did notice that you hadn't !voted "delete" in a single one of them. You know your own record better than I do: can you link to any from the last ten years in which you were in favour of deletion?
    Anyway, here you may not have explicitly !voted, but a comment that does not say "keep", "delete", "merge", "redirect" or "userfy" but does essentially amount to "Sources probably exist" could easily be read as "Keep", especially given how you recently told editors to read "behind" your comments to establish whether you supported or opposed another content proposal.
    As an aside, please retract your baseless personal attack stop spreading the same ridiculous lies every chance you get. I have never lied a single time in my interactions wih you; accusations without evidence (ditto your completely off-topic "hounding" accusation here) are personal attacks and are completely unacceptable.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't know anything about this topic, but the same is clearly true of others, and that has apparently not stopped them from !voting "keep" based on the principle that sources discussing this probably exist and that the topic as exemplified in the page title must not be inherently biased/flawed to the point where nothing in the page history is worth preserving. Based on the apparent lack of sources, I'm working under the assumption that the India-focused editors, who have so far all commented in favour of deletion, know more about Indian topics than the AFD-focused editors, who have so far all commented in favour of keeping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism to form an article called "Castes in Sikhism". Also I'd like to remind everyone to be civil. Acebulf (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Won't work. In fact, the proposed merge target should be deleted also for the reasons I gave in my early responses to AD. There is an infinite number of communities (ca. 1800 identified by the British, now over 3200 because anyone can "create" a caste simply by calling themselves one; some only last a few years and then give up), not all communities affected by the reservation system are castes, anyone in any community can profess any religion they choose, and we've already deleted List of Indian castes (which lies dormant in AD's userspace ever since the AfD). An utterly pointless, impossible to maintain list that will merely serve as a honeypot for warring that, frankly, about three experienced contributors will be expected to manage. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (In case anyone is unfamiliar, the page is currently at User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes, Colonel Warden being an alt-account of Andrew Davidson. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    • Delete, then, as this debate seems to have been settled in the AFD for list of Indian Castes. Acebulf (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for the numerous reasons stated by me above. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Sitush. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nurdin Rijal Ardhi

    Nurdin Rijal Ardhi (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)

    Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

    WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in
    talk) 15:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep.

    Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Sar Cheshmeh, Khuzestan

    Sar Cheshmeh, Khuzestan (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 can't read the spreadsheet which seems to indicate that the place has no population, but GEONames points to a location that appears to be entirely ruined, if the aerial photography is to be believed. I'm willing to believe in a village if a census gives it a population, but according to the article, the census doesn't. I don't see how we can claim that it's a village when evidences suggests that at best it might once have been a village, maybe back in the days of Cyrus the Great. Geographic names databases are not good enough as sole sources for articles (they have too many mistakes); that and a census which apparently doesn't have a number just isn't enough. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. (probably),if it ever was inhabited. WP covers the past as well as the present DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that we can't claim that it IS a village when evidence shows that, at best, it may have been a village. If someone can address the issue of what exactly the census says, that might help. But simply dumping GNIS and names from a census together isn't good enough evidence. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that it was certainly a village at once time, and the census data notes this and gives a name. But it's not a going concern, there is nothing there now except ruins. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per DGG Chetsford (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT
    . It would be useful to the next person who tries to close this if somebody could research our policy regarding notability of extinct towns and provide citations to the appropriate policy pages.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      WP:NTEMP). Therefore any place which was once inhabited is presumed notable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep per Prince of Thieves and DGG. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I would be perfectly happy to have an article which could say, "Sar Cheshmeh, Khuzestan was once a village, but there are only ruins there now." The problem is that saying it "is" a village is something that everyone who is responding here admits isn't true. So the argument is that we need to keep an article whose content we know is false. I just don't see that. If someone who can read the census can tell us exactly what it's saying about this place, that would help, but that is apparently not going to happen. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The census lists it as a place, but of unknown type (town/village unspecified) and with a population of 0. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Harmonica Dan

    Harmonica Dan (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)

    Nothing to support WP:Music or WP:GNG. London Hall (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 05:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Aagentah

    Aagentah (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)

    Created by an SPA that fails

    WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are limited to social media and music hosting platforms. MT TrainTalk 14:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Author Update: Issue has been acknowledged, excessive social links have since been removed and notable magazine & label sources have been added to compensate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjones mcr (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. 3 refs left which don't establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 05:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Jaivindra Singh Bhati

    Jaivindra Singh Bhati (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 director. Fails

    WP:BEFORE could not find anything which warrants an article HagennosTalk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because it is about a non notable film which fails

    WP:NFILM
    and associated with the topic:

    Ishq Ka Manjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HagennosTalk 14:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HagennosTalk 14:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. HagennosTalk 14:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both no evidence of notability. The coverage in Hindi media does not provide notability under
      talk|c|em) 15:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    TopCashBack

    TopCashBack (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)

    Random online deal site, most edits by

    WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the first block, every single one was clearly based on a press release. Can you suggest individual articles that are (a) reliable, (b) independent and (c) secondary? Also, were you solicited to take part in this debate? I notice it's only your second edit this year, well over a year since you last took any interest in AfD, and you have never edited this article. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blue Kangaroo

    AfDs for this article:
    Blue Kangaroo (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)

    After I toned down the spam, there's not much beyond a

    WP:SPA. I am calling spam. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete there are no indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails
      HighKing++ 11:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Adorama

    Adorama (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:CORP by a wide margin, the only actual coverage of the company as a company is a human interest piece in relation to its adherence to orthodox Jewish practice in its opening hours. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayogu Kingsley

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

    Failing

    WP:ARTIST Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk • mail) 12:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk • mail) 12:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 05:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Swastika Dutta

    Swastika Dutta (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 no reliable sources to support this subject passes

    WP:NACTOR. MT TrainTalk 12:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, there's coverage in Indian news sources. Karl Twist (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't find more than passing mentions in a local tabloid. MT TrainTalk 10:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I see no evidence that any of her roles are "significant", and so far, no reliable sources have been found that discuss her life and career at any length.
      talk|c|em) 15:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam-C

    Sam-C (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 declined a speedy on this article on the basis that if it went through AFC and was accepted there, speedy deletion might be controversial. However, this does not preclude me from nominating it for deletion on the basis that except for a short mention on this possibly reliable source, there is no coverage in any reliable sources that I can find. The rest of the sources in the article are blog posts, user generated databases and Spotify/YouTube. He is not singed to a notable label and has no charting music either. Fails

    WP:NBIO. Regards SoWhy 12:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per my previous nomination as this subject is not even remotely close to being notable but makes no actual claim of significance and has significant BLPvios. The user that accepted this at AFC in their first 10 accepts moved 3 copyvios to mainspace and half a dozen spam/PR pieces so it's not like it actually went through afc...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator.

    (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Wittard: Nemesis of Ragnarok

    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 appears to have no sources in the webisphere. Coin945 (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Life Office Management Association. Noting too that AfD is not for nominating articles to be merged. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    LOMA 280 Principles of Insurance

    LOMA 280 Principles of Insurance (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)

    Merge with parent article as no evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    When Obama loved Osama

    When obama loved osama (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)

    Crystalballing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page move note. Page was moved to When Obama loved Osama after the AfD was opened. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; "upcoming" is the magic word. If the authors genuinely feel there's anything here worth keeping, I wouldn't object to temporarily parking it in noindexed draft space for three months until the film is released, and restoring it if and when someone can demonstrate non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. ‑ 
      Iridescent 21:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete (at least for now). Principal shooting has started, but I'm not seeing in-depth coverage of the film yet.
      too soon for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete per
      WP:TOOSOON. I agree with the above reviewers; there's not a substantial amount of coverage and it appears that there's no coverage of the production, which would give it notability before its release. That being said as well, I also don't see anything of substance in the article as it is, and I worry, is the plot possibly a copyright violation? It reads like a promotional bit of material. Red Phoenix talk 22:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Scotland's Malt Whisky Trail

    Scotland's Malt Whisky Trail (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 simple advertising. It has no merit as a subjec and no notability. All the refs are affiliated advertsing sites. This is a simple and understandable ploy to get punters into distilleries and buying Whisky. It fails

    WP:GNG by a mile (and it doesn't include the Islay and Skye distilleries!)  Velella  Velella Talk   10:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment There is a lot of tourist coverage of this, and interestingly, there is also some coverage of it as a marketing tool. I'm going to take a look at the latter and see if it can be incorporated in the article. But yes, it's a marketing thing. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I've found a paper with good historical info which can be used to counterbalance the current promotional tone. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 06:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Felix Tréguer

    Felix Tréguer (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 be notable enough NAH 10:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to La Quadrature du Net or delete. He is quoted in some sources such as [12], [13] and [14], but I could not find any detailed coverage in independent sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      True. But I don't really see the point of the redirect. NAH 11:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Government High School Thari MirWah

    Government High School Thari MirWah (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)

    of the hundred thousands of government schools in Pakistan.. i don't see how this one pass notability.. too much OR in the article and no reliable and independent reference. Saqib (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom. Unfortunately, there's not much of value here. —
    talk
    contribs) 22:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadab Rasool Buriro

    Shadab Rasool Buriro (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 in-depth coverage and no press coverage over sufficiently significant period of time.. this is

    WP:BLP1E. Saqib (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 06:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Khalid Nawaz Awan

    Khalid Nawaz Awan (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)

    failed to find in depth coverage.. Saqib (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to

    Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Abdul Basit (Salman Khan fan)

    Abdul Basit (Salman Khan fan) (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)

    clear case of

    WP:BLP1E Saqib (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. MT TrainTalk 13:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with article on Salman Khan. This article is about somebody who is clearly labelled as a Salman Khan fan, so all the information on this person could go there. Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not make sense. Salman Khan has literary million of die hard fans including many prominent... what so spiecal about mentioning about this one on his bio? Saqib (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He does such gestures regularly as part of his Being Human Foundation, with several hundreds of 'fans'. MT TrainTalk 16:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Awami Raaj Tahreek

    AfDs for this article:
    Awami Raaj Tahreek (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:GNG. most of the cited sources doesn't mention it. the rest are unreliable including fake BBC Sindhi.. this one is not registered party and certainly not the one created by Jamshed Dasti, as said in the previous AfD. Saqib (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The sources here all support the notability of a prior organization that this one claims to be the successor to — but none of them properly
      verify that this organization exists as a successor to it, because they completely fail to mention it at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ann M. Dibb

    AfDs for this article:
    Ann_M._Dibb (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 subject fails the basic criteria of notability,

    WP:BASIC. Firstly, a person is presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. These sources provided are not intellectually independent of each other, they are internal publications of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, reporting on their own internal appointments. Secondly, in any case, the depth of coverage of these sources is not substantial, and qualifies as trivial coverage of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansumaria (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete - The vast majority of google news results for Dibb are about her father, Thomas S. Monson. There are exceptions, such as this, which are profiles related to her position as second councelor of Young Women (organization). Her profile or coverage may grow, but right now I don't see enough material for a clear, NPOV biography. I think improvement is posible and would approve of re-creation if better sources are found. I'm not sure how high of a profile she is that a redirect to Monson or Young Women would be helpful. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I see decent sourcing coming out of the Mormon church, but that is of no use in terms of notability as she worked for the church and it is therefore not independent. I can barely see a claim of importance here-- she's important... why? When you put those two together I do not see notability being established by sources, and I do not see the reason for her inclusion in the encyclopedia either.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Syed Faizan Sarkar

    Syed Faizan Sarkar (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)

    Does not satisfy

    WP:BIO. MT TrainTalk 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Not sufficiently notable. Even the campaign as such is questionable notabilitywise. 13:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

    Satisfy

    WP:BIO. Aizan.HadiAizan.Hadi 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aizan.HadiAizan.Hadi 19:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't Delete Sufficiently Notable Personality, there are even more evidences which can be shared if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizan.hadi (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Aizan.hadi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MT TrainTalk 07:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete per

    WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Suman Kumar Kasturi

    AfDs for this article:
    Suman Kumar Kasturi (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 CV (including full publication lists and education details) of an author with no indication of wider impact, coverage, or notability of either works of person; sources are either primary or irrelevant. Fails

    WP:NACADEMIC. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    missfortune 08:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    missfortune 08:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    missfortune 08:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Upasana RC

    Upasana RC (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 evidence of any notability. Refs are affiliated sources, advertisments or press release. Mothing that identifies notability. Fails

    WP:GNG. Would have been better as a draft going through review when these issues might have been identified before abruptly transitioning into mainspace  Velella  Velella Talk   07:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    missfortune 08:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    missfortune 08:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    missfortune 08:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete an obvious promotional effort, supported by sources that are obviously promotional in nature. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify quite notable, only not well referenced. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 06:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Doctor Mew

    Doctor Mew (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)

    As far as I can tell, we don't do articles based on fan art with minimal coverage. Much of this can be merged into the artist's article. --

    TW 07:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    missfortune 08:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, none of the above editors have addressed whether the citations in the "Reception" section are
      notability (i suspect not), "well why don't you coola?" yes i could but my cat bias (i luv dogs too:)) might show, plus its doctor who! Coolabahapple (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete or Merge Normally coverage on the Pets Lady blog clinches it for me. (Not.) I find this article to be more of an advertisement for a single, silly, work done by an artist than a good encyclopedia article. The coverage is there but if this were about a person we would say that it all centers around one event.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Shealeigh

    Shealeigh (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 singer. Most of the secondary sources used are dead links. I failed to locate significant coverage of reliable sources. Shealeigh has performed a song on the

    a singing contest but it doesn't look like a major music competition as it's more about "discovering new and unsigned artists". — Zawl 07:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 18:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 06:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I've added additional citations to the article, including two in-depth pieces about her in newspapers. The current article passes
      WP:MUSICBIO (1, 9, 10) Lonehexagon (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus.

    Spartaz Humbug! 06:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Live at Dunk! Fest

    Live at Dunk! Fest (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 appear to meet WP:NALBUM Enwebb (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a new source from Westword along with a quote about the performance's background. I think that and two other sources listed are reliable and nontrivial. CelestialWeevil (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the addition of the Westword source and its related background / quote allows this article to reach notability. CelestialWeevil (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 06:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete.

    WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Deepen Shah

    Deepen Shah (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 NYT blog is the best source I can find, but it has a couple of quotes about him in an article about the company he co-founded. Seems to be some way off meeting

    WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 06:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 06:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Living theory approach

    Living theory approach (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)

    Basically a promotional article pushing for someone's theory with random articles as refs. RedUser (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 06:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 06:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Tushar Kanti Barua

    Tushar Kanti Barua (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)

    Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes

    WP:NSCHOLAR. Unless being a fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute of GB & I auto qualifies someone (but I don't think it does). And we'd need a source showing that assertion. Onel5969 TT me 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete TNT. There are no sources, meaning the whole, long article is OR. A SPA has written/nurtured this article for a long time, suggesting COI. Anyhow, this person may be notable, but I don't think it's worth much investment at this time on the article in its current form. Need to start over. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is archeology, not biology. Using citation statistics without considering the subject gives irrelevant conclusions. A citation count of 44 would be trivial for someone in experimental biomedicine, but other fields are different. It depends upon the citation density, the number of publications in the field in which things could be cited and the average number of citations in them. Archeology is noteworthy for having very restricted and specialized publication practices, more so than perhaps any other field, so this question has come up frequently. He's an antropologist as well, but working in a less-studied area, where the same publication statistics apply, so the figure is actually quite substantial for the field. He's been director of a museum, and Fellow of both the major US and UK societies in the field. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 06:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fellowship in the Royal Anthropological Institute (FRAI) would be a pass of
      WP:PROF#C1 — yes, this subject has very different citation patterns than biomedicine, so we can't take this record as meaning that he isn't notable, but it also isn't evidence that he is. And directorship of the Ethnological Museum, Chittagong sounds significant but the article makes clear that it was only for a short term while the museum was still in its planning stages, long before it opened to the public. So I don't see a basis for keeping the article. But I'd be happy to change my mind if the FRAI or fellowship of the AAA can be confirmed, or if other evidence of notability turns up. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm curious about these "very restricted and specialized publication practices", DGG. I thought we published in monographs and journals, like most social scientists. Citation rates do vary from field to field, but 30–40 is middle of the road for archaeology (see e.g. random papers on the Chalcolithic), and there's still only a few of those showing up on a GScholar search. He's not actually an author of the one highly cited paper that David mentions – Current Anthropology confusingly lists all the people who commented on a paper amongst the authors. And the article itself doesn't make a strong case for impact; the "most important" papers it lists are mostly conference proceedings.
    For
    WP:PROF#C3, even if it could be verified, RAI fellowship is not very selective and I don't think it would qualifiy. Similarly membership of the AAA is open to anyone
    and as far as I'm aware they don't have fellows as such.
    In terms of positions, I can't see how a short stint as director of a provincial museum indicates notability. The career history in the article is confusing (and again – all unverifiable), but it seems his highest position was docent at Zurich, which is not suggestive of notability either.
    And we shouldn't ignore the fact that this is a poorly written, promotional and completely unreferenced BLP. Inclusions like the marks he got on his university exams and his disagreements with his bosses at the museum strongly suggest a COI. So even if the subject were notable, this is a
    WP:TNT candidate if I ever saw one. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As for the GS search, I don't know how you analyzed it, but you must have been looking at the first few screens only, and they are shown in rough citation order. there are 23,000 items there indexed with that word--only the first 6 screes show papers with more than 40 citations -- there are only about 60 papers out of that 23,000 with 40 or more. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well famously citation rates have a very long-tailed distribution and up to 80% of papers aren't cited at all. Honestly I don't know of a good way to objectively assess citation rates by field (other than broad data like this). I was trying to think of a way to back up my gut feeling (as somebody in the field) that 40 cites in archaeology is "good but not great". It does make me wish we had some more solid metrics for
    WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 06:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Wartaqooqan

    Wartaqooqan (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)

    Maybe this one is an intermittent lake? Geonames just calls it a locality, and nobody else disagrees, but again, if we can't say what kind of place it is, I don't see inherent notability: Geonames alone just isn't reliable enough. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
      Talk to my owner:Offline 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's supposedly an unpopulated locality, I looked on google maps and the entire region is barren desertlike ground with no real features nearby other than this lake and an empty road that doesn't even get that near. It is possible it was at some point it was the centre of a community that has since been wiped out, stolen or moved somewhere else. It could plausibly be a nomadic town, which was camped somewhere else at the time of the photograph but may come back with the seasons. (an intermittent town?). It may be a governmental region or some kind of designation by whatever government Somalia has now (assuming it has one) or a designation used by a previous government or maybe a local warlord, or the name of an African tribe that used to live there, or their tribal lands. Or the name of a deity that is supposed to live there. But really who knows? It could be anything. I am pretty sure a UFO landing site could get into these databases. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As I have stated before, as this place exists, hence it should be kept. The problem the nominator seems to have is that it is not defined. However this dilemma is a combination of the weakness of the Somali government, as well as a fear by organizations that could have mapped these areas to go near to them. Admittedly there is a dearth of information, due to stubborn facts on the ground. However this reality should not make us resort to nuking mention of these areas. This part of the world is already lacking in info as it is. Why make it worse by deleting whats there? 92.9.152.17 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that there is no proof it exists. The only mention is in a database which is known to include errors, and my entire first comment is pure speculation. There is absolutely nothing there in reality other than a seasonal lake. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 06:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I even ran it through Google Translate to see if it could get any more specific: "Broken Camp." The decimal degrees seem to me suggest it may be within 2-3km of the actual point on the map, which is incredibly unhelpful in determining its existence. Only sources seem to reference the same database WP references. I'm happy to delete without prejudice if we can establish more information, but it's doubtful based on the available sources at the moment. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 various places. There's pretty good consensus here that most of these don't need stand-alone articles. There's a bit of a

    WP:TRAMWRECK
    here, which makes it difficult to figure out which ones fit into most.

    The general opinion seems to be merge somewhere, but there's no good agreement on exactly how that merge should work. User:DanTD's scheme seems logical, but I'll leave the details up to whoever performs the merge. Leave redirects behind in all cases.

    Lastly, if anybody can identify particular stations which are indeed notable on their own, feel free to break them back out into their own (properly sourced) article. Just don't take that as carte blanche to revert them all. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    36th and Market station

    36th and Market station (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 page, along with numerous others, depict small stops along SEPTA's

    Subway-Surface Lines. The majority of these above-ground stops have no physical facilities or shelter, no curb, and only merely a small sign. It is nothing more than a bus stop, which I do not believe makes it notable enough for each stop to have its own page. Additionally, the stop pages are all stubs -- there is no content that cannot be displayed in a station list for the line. I would propose further to delete all above-ground non-major "stations" in the category Category:SEPTA Subway–Surface Trolley Line stations. — C16SH (speak up) 06:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all of these were recently created and are not notable on their own, and we don't typically list non-notable tram stops. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I am also nominating the following related pages under the same rationale. — C16SH (speak up) 06:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Island and Suffolk station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Lindbergh and Island station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Island and Suffolk station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    76th and Island station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Tanager and Island station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Buist and Island station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Island and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    72nd and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    71st and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    70th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    69th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    68th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    67th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    66th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    65th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    64th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    63rd and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    62nd and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    61st and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Edgewood and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    59th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    58th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    57th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    56th and Elmwood station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Wheeler and Lindbergh station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    53rd and Lindbergh station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Lindbergh and Grays station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Grays and Lindbergh station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    52nd and Grays station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    51st and Grays station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    49th and Grays station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Paschall and 49th station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    60th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    59th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    58th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    57th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    56th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    55th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    54th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    53rd and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Broomall and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    52nd and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    51st and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    50th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    49th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Florence and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    48th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    47th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    46th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    45th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    44th and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    43rd and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    42nd and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    41st and Baltimore station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    62nd and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    49th and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    48th and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    47th and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    46th and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    45th and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    43rd and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    42nd and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    41st and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Chester and Woodland station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Lancaster and Lansdowne station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    Girard and Lancaster station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    40th and Lancaster station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    36th and Lancaster station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    63rd Street station (SEPTA Route 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    40th Street station (SEPTA Route 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    34th Street station (SEPTA Route 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    @Smartyllama: What does that have to do with anything? Both Muni and Septa have some stops with platforms, and some without. They both have articles with copy paste info. A majority of articles for both are stubs. Cards84664 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cards84664: Being a stub isn't a reason for deletion. And Muni includes way more than the Metro. All the Metro stations have platforms, as best I can tell. Many of the Muni stations in other modes (like the actual trolley, which the Metro isn't) do not. If you have evidence to the contrary, show it. Smartyllama (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartyllama: Can you clarify what you're asking for? I think you're getting Septa and Muni terminology mixed up. Cards84664 (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cards84664: Muni Metro is light rail according to the Wikipedia article on it. Light rail stations are generally notable. The SEPTA articles in question are trolleys, which are several steps below light rail in terms of significance. The Trolleybuses in San Francisco are also maintained by Muni, but are not part of the Metro. Muni's the controlling transit authority, the San Francico version of SEPTA. They operate notable stations and non-notable ones, depending on the mode. Light rail and trolleys are simply not equivalent. I believe light rail is referred to as trolley in some parts of Europe, but in the United States, trolleys refer to another, less notable mode of transportation. Smartyllama (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No, we don't need to keep any stop which is just a stop (e.g. a sign and possibly a seat and/or shelter). We only keep actual stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (
    GCRTA once used PCC streetcars and Breda Light rail vehicles at the same time.) Cards84664 (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Fair enough. I'm striking my above !vote and changing it below in light of this. Smartyllama (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As Cards84664 pointed out, some of these stations are significant, while others may be less so. Nominating them all en masse is not a solution. If anyone has reasons why any individual station is non-notable, they can nominate it individually, but simply saying as a blanket statement that every single surface station is non-notable regardless of its significance in the system is clearly wrong. Smartyllama (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undecided We need to decide if only some are notable, or none are notable (i.e. stops/stations on private right-of-ways
      here and here. Cards84664 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    @Necrothesp: Another note, in terms of stop notability, what should be done with the DC Streetcar articles? Cards84664 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't know. I don't know the system. But if its stops aren't real stations then they should be deleted too. This is our standard practice. There are thousands of tram stops in European cities and many thousands more former stops on defunct tram systems throughout the world that don't (and shouldn't) have articles for just this reason. They're no different from bus stops. No reason any favouritism should be shown to existing American tram stops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Light rail is not the same as tram. Light rail systems are higher capacity and higher speed. Whether that matters for notability is a matter for discussion, but let's make sure we're coming at this with accurate premises, please. Smartyllama (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm aware of that. But if light rail systems have street-running stops then they're not really operating as light rail systems in that section of the system, since by definition street-running cannot be at light rail speed - that requires an exclusive right of way - and the SEPTA Subway–Surface Trolley Lines and DC Streetcar do not appear to be classified as light rail systems in any case, so I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suggest moving all SF Muni/light rail discussion to another venue, like WT:WikiProject Stations. Streetcar stops are probably not notable, and some systems are definitely straddling the line between streetcar and proper light rail, so it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. SounderBruce 07:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SounderBruce: Sounds like a good idea to keep this page from getting too long, since the only differences between Septa, Muni and DC are the vehicles used. Cards84664 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into a list of SEPTA trolley stops, and redirect the articles there. If any of these stations becomes more notable in the future, then the previous content could also be used for context. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was struggling to determine notability for every single station when proposing this deletion, but I think merging them into a list makes the most sense. — C16SH (speak up) 19:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into the lists of trolley stops, except for the loops, portal-based stations, major stations, and termini. In other words
      49th and Woodland (SEPTA station) should be kept under the condition that the connection to the Woodand Carhouse. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Balto (film)#Sequels. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Balto III: Wings of Change

    Balto III: Wings of Change (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)

    Straight-to-video animation sequel without reliable 3rd party coverage, fails

    WP:NFILM. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete.

    WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Kokhon Tomar Asbe Telephone

    Kokhon Tomar Asbe Telephone (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 satisfying

    film notability
    . No independent coverage such as reviews. No in-depth coverage of film found on Google search.

    May be

    conflict of interest. Author is also promoting lyricist Adhyaan. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 06:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico

    Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico (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)

    Yet another county freeholder article with no source except her official biography [19]. And yes, the article was mostly copied and pasted from there. Otherwise fails

    Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I am also nominating the following related pages of other Hudson County Freeholders for lack of notability and poor sourcing. Some, but not all of these articles also appear to be copied and pasted from the county website:

    Bill O'Dea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Jeffrey Dublin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Anthony Romano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Tilo Rivas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Jose C. Muñoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Thomas Liggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Albert Cifelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Thomas A. DeGise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)- he's the county executive. Other than a NY Time's article about him losing in the Jersey City mayoral race, not much coverage of him either.
    • Delete as per nominator; there are a large number of articles about non-notable New Jersey politicians on here at the moment. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it happens elsewhere too (last year I nominated a large cluster of minimally sourced or unsourced small-town mayors from Quebec) — New Jersey's not unique in that regard, it just happens to be where somebody's actively undertaking a cleanup effort at the moment. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure - I'm just tired of writing the same delete statement over and over again! SportingFlyer (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To the closer: As you'll see below, I support the deletion of all articles, including DeGise. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edited) Delete all. DeGise as county executive has minimal national news coverage, is more relevant that the others, so I was inclined to keep. The rest are strictly local politicians of local interest only with local sources only. However I was mistaken in my initial thoughts, and even DeGise seems to be a non-notable local politician. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    Rusf10 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Please explain with facts not opinions why a County executive should be bundled with freeholders, which are not the same.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I thought it said he was a mayor. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My position is that DeGise is not similarly situated and should be included in a separate AfD, where the merits of his notability can be discussed individually. While DeGise may not meet
    WP:GNG, he is not just a "Hudson County Freeholder." --Enos733 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment County executive and freeholder are not the same.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment if Degise is withdrawn, I'll AfD the article individually, as it does not appear to pass
    WP:POLITICIAN. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It seems like a waste of time to create a new AfD just for the County executive, if anyone wants to !vote keep for that one article that is fine, it can still be kept even as part of a group AfD. (as can any of the articles nominated here). Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The
    Wikipedia:BUNDLE is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected.Djflem (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This procedural wikilawyering has to stop. You'd oppose all the deletions regardless of if they were done separately, so its really a moot point. County freeholder and county executive are two closely related positions and the sourcing in the DeGise article is not significantly different than the others.--
    Rusf10 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You DO NOT know what I'd do, so don't make an ASSumption. Refrain. The
    Wikipedia:BUNDLE is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected, despite this edit to cover your tracks Djflem (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Easy there! Calling me an ass does not further your point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bundling or that edit. The article was added to the nomination shortly after the nomination was made which is clearly how its supposed to be done as per
    Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You DO NOT know what do not like. Refrain from such statements.
    Wikipedia:WDAFD is the correct procedure.Djflem (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:WDAFD can't be used because several people have supported deletion of all the articles in this multiAfD, explicitly stating that the article in contention should be deleted, therefore it is not possible for Rusf10 to now withdraw it. Now as I keep saying, if you want it kept, then vote keep for that article! Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Correct, even if I wanted to withdraw the nomination at this point all I could possibly do is withdraw my support for deletion, I cannot close the discussion and renominate since others have voted delete. That said, I am still standing by my original statement that the nomination was appropriate and is backuped by further evidence of
    Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think there's some confusion about the difference between a freeholder and county executive. Several counties in New Jersey do not have an executive, the freeholders choose a director among themselves instead to serve the same role.--
    Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Makes sense in general that there may not be a distinction in all cases (similar to mayors in a council-manager form of government). In the case of Hudson County the executive is directly elected by the people. --Enos733 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, both the freeholders themselves and the county executive are directly elected.--
    Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    While it is convenient to use or ignore policy when it suits a preferred outcome it can be taken as a form of     Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Active or tactic complicicy for the abuse of the policies, guidelines, procedures to which editors (to the best of their knowledge) adhere and upon which they rely is damaging to Wikipedia. A sense of propriety should prevail and not suffer for the sake of expediency.

    One sees at

    Thomas A. DeGise and, using proper procedure, do the right thing. (and trust, learn from the mistakes?)Djflem (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    There was accommodation for Rusf10's
    Wikipedia:PROCEDURALCLOSE/KEEP on the one article would be proper procedure. (Give the other tainted nom a slide based on discussion).Djflem (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Certainly, but given the absolute disaster that occured when someone last got Rusf10 to "fix" his AfD bundle, it is completely reasonable to request that either Djflem does it himself or he gets another uninvolved party to do it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Or even better, I posted on AN/I to get an admin to come over and deal with this whichever way is best. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I guess that was what had to be done because Djflem is not letting this go. Besides the fact that s/he is wrong here, repeating the same thing over and over again here is not helping anyone. As for
    Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Noification This nomination is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico requires attention.

    • Delete all- none of these are notable, and cries of "one of these is not like the others" do not really ring true. Reyk YO! 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a distinction (http://wwww.hudsoncountyclerk.org/county-officials/):
    Office Branch Term Election
    County Executive Executive 4 years At-large (county-wide) Thomas A. DeGise
    Freeholder

    Board of Chosen Freeholders

    		 Legislative 3 years One for each of 9 districts

    Djflem (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    To be blunt: So what? Are there any policy based reasons to keep DeGise? Is there any reason that you can put forward that his article would be kept at an individual AfD? If so make that argument. Otherwise the article will simply be put up for AfD, likely by the closer of this if it is 'procedural', and it will be deleted after seven more days and more wasted time. As far as the
    notability criteria for politicians and judges goes - much like a rose, an elected county official by any other name... Jbh Talk 14:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Agreed. This is a distinction without a relevant difference, and attempting to get the discussion shut down on this basis seems a lot like obstructionist wikilawyering. Reyk YO! 10:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete most or all. County-level officials generally do not meet NPOL. I won't comment on the one exception, as I have not reviewed it specifically. I suggest deleting all but that one for now, and then a separate nom for that as a stand-alone for more thorough review. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all except for McGise, which should be procedurally kept pending a separate AFD as it is a case that is different enough to the others so as to warrant closer examination. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Strong delete all We need to act expeditiously to remove all these articles on non-notable politicians from New Jersey. These articles were created on the assumption that holding the office of county freeholder was a sign of default notability. This is not the case, and so we need to move to remove these articles, which in some cases have somehow survived more than 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As it stands, the wording is promotional. Deb (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Untitled Blumhouse Television anthology series

    Untitled Blumhouse Television anthology series (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)

    π, ν) 03:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wait until it has a network and a title. Don't do 'untitled series' articles, please, it's a waste of time and resources when we actually have to move it.
      chatter) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    It does have a network: Hulu. It also has an airdate: October 2018. But I still understand the point being made here. Out of curiosity though, what "time and resources" are involved in moving a page? As far as I understand it, and I have moved pages before, all that is required is simply going to the move tab at the top of the screen and changing the title. I'm always open to learning from more experienced editors, so please accept my question in the genuine manner in which it was intended. BoogerD (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than that. We have to update all inline templates, along with the articles of cast, crew, networks and distributors as we roll by weeks without the show having a title but people signing on and confirmed in the entertainment media. An average move of that type with one editor takes two-three hours. So in our experience with television series and networks, it's better to have all the information ready to go when the show is announced with a title, cast and network (the airdate matters less as long as we have it in a certain quarter) than it is to be under an 'untitled' designation and have a lingering link that will get no traffic once the 'untitled' work gets a title.
    chatter) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thank you. That was a thorough and thoughtful response that one would expect from an experienced editor. I will take everything you have said into consideration. Have a nice evening. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BoogerD, I see you have been on Wikipedia for 11 years! Here is my explanation for you. It will take three or four editors five to ten minutes to review this page and !vote on it. Let's say five editors at seven minutes a piece. This page without a doubt going to be deleted, so that makes 35 minutes of wasted editor time for something that actually should not be here in the first place. If the page was about a show that had aired and had reviews, then hey, no time wasted! It pays to follow policies. Hope that helps to explain things. Also, just logically speaking, if something does not exist yet, everything that can be said about it is promotional. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, ten minutes? To read an article that is a paragraph long? There is no guideline or anything in the manual of style that cites that a film or television show or special need have aired/been released or been reviewed in order to qualify for an article. I am certainly willing to follow the guidance of the community but I will defend my actions when someone is basing an argument on something not rooted in anything factual. Hope we can continue to edit together. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All sources are purely promotion, and show does not even exist yet. Hello? Not notable if it has never been screened or reviewed. We are not a promotional site.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The sources are from independent news organizations picking up on the notable news story of one of the top two major streaming services teaming with a major production company to produce a television series. If the sources were, as you put it, "purely promotional" then they would've been on an official Hulu website. I am willing to accept/listen to the argument that it might be premature to have an article for the series until there is are some producers/writers/stars attached. However, a film or television series or special does not have to have been released or reviewed to make it notable or worthy of inclusion in an article. Note the hundreds of pages for upcoming films, television series, and specials. You are right, Wikipedia is not a promotional website. Articles should be written in such a manner as to objectively cover notable subjects. They should be written by third parties not associated with the topic or those who would have a conflict of interest. That is not the case here. I would concede that the article may have been published slightly early. However, once more information is released it will certainly be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Have a nice evening. BoogerD (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to read
    WP:CRYSTAL. For whatever reason, you are an 11 year veteran editor and do not seem to see how those policies apply here. You're on the losing end of the argument here, as above.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thank you for presuming that in the 11 years that I have been on here, as you kindly noted, I have not read read any of the policies, guidelines, or manual of style articles. I have actually. My point still stands. I'm not arguing that this specific article not be deleted at this moment in time. However, your assertion that a film or television show need be released or reviewed before an article is created is just patently untrue. Good night. BoogerD (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 06:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    ArtDaily

    ArtDaily (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, about an art news website, does not cite a single source and reads mostly like a news release, especially in the History section. A Google search of the website's name does not reveal any secondary sources that might vouch for its legitimacy or even mention its name.

    I stumbled upon the website through this article, which doesn't seem at all like a professional piece of news, to say the least. Furthermore, I find it suspicious that the site calls itself "ArtDaily.org" while actually having a ".com" URL.

    Additionally, the article's creator,

    WP:COI
    and make the article a blatant piece of self-promotion.

    I put a

    WP:PROD tag on the article, but it was removed by User:Kvng
    , who said, "Volumes of incoming links (mostly in refs) indicates this may be a reliable source and may be notable. Deleting would create a lot of redlinks and this does not improve things for readers."

    If this article can't be sourced with

    WP:RS for their articles. Armadillopteryxtalk 02:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: The number of Wikipedia articles that cite ArtDaily is more than 100, but do you feel that that number that should be greater than 0? Would you, in good conscience, use it for your own articles? Keeping ArtDaily only because many pages presently link to it would seem to enable rather than correct the problem.
    This site fails one of the fundamental criteria for being a
    WP:RS, which is to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Since you recognize that it is a publication "based on press releases with minimal editorial control," why do you prefer to keep its article instead of encouraging editors to re-source or remove claims that come from it? Given the lack of secondary sources that mention ArtDaily, we can't even source our own observation that the site lacks the resources to fact-check. Do you think that the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia are helped or harmed by keeping this article, whose simple existence will be enough to lead some editors to believe ArtDaily is a reputable source? Armadillopteryxtalk 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Don't really care how this one shakes out but do want to point out on the San Francisco museum of modern art page, one ArtDaily article has a link to this page and the other is a nonlink to ArtDaily.org. Shouldn't be all that hard to clean up if this page is deleted. SportingFlyer talk 22:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is presumably OK to use this site as if it were a
    WP:PRIMARY source (i.e. carefully). I think the encyclopedia is helped by having an article about this source. We can and should edit the article to remove any content that makes it look any more reliable as a source than it actually is. If we delete it, we'll leave 100 redlinks and readers will make their own divergent assumptions. ~Kvng (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    In principle I wouldn't oppose keeping this article if we could find reliable secondary sources that mention ArtDaily (i.e. anything that could be used to source the article). But there don't seem to exist any such sources, so what content could the article contain? At the moment the only possibility seems to be to overwrite one wholly unsourced article with another wholly unsourced article. That solution wouldn't be acceptable per policy or even common sense, IMO. In fact, I think that if the article is deleted, the "A page with this name has previously been deleted" tag at the destination could easily include a short warning about using the site in articles. Creating red links would, hopefully, draw the attention of editors who have used ArtDaily as a source to that message. Personally, I always click (newly) red links to see what happened to pages I know used to exist.
    As for considering ArtDaily a
    WP:PRIMARY, I don't think it quite falls under that category. It seems to author little to none of the content that it publishes, so we can't know where any given article on the site comes from. It could come from a source close to an artist, it could come from a gallery, or it could come from a random troll, as the example I've linked above seems to. I think the lack of oversight and editing there makes it impossible to categorize, even as an unreliable source :-/ Armadillopteryxtalk 15:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I can see how a redlink could be an adequate warning to readers. A redlink would be better at drawing attention to the issue but would be worse than a bluelink at explaining what the issue is. ~Kvng (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Just not seeing (or finding) independent source which could established notability. Yilloslime TC 20:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I did multiple Google searches, and there's no coverage that would indicate this site is in any way notable. Fails
      WP:GNG. And the reason is quite clear - it is a site built solely on copying and pasting selected press releases from news services. If you subscribed to Business Wire or Marketwired and set up filters for art-related keywords, you'd be able to replicate this site. It's not rocket science. I looked at the first few articles that link to this site and the incoming links are there because editors used this site as an unreliable source. Deleting this and causing redlinks would actually have the added benefit of alerting others to find alternate sources in all those other articles. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 06:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Ivaylo Ivanov (criminal)

    Ivaylo Ivanov (criminal) (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 meet

    π, ν) 01:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Note - Editors please read these book sources. They are brief blurbs without any indepth analysis. Heck, the first one looks like exact text from this article or vice versa.
    • Delete - This is exactly what
      routine follow-ups after lapses in any material whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Per changes made to article since nomination. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Raw intelligence

    Raw intelligence (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)

    Short and simple; Wikipedia is not a dictionary per

    WP:NOTDICTIONARY. If the article can be expanded to be an elaboration on term as opposed to just a definition, I would be willing to reconsider this nomination. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Weak Keep Provided, that is, the article could be more fleshed out as per Wikipedia standards.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep or Redirect I actually created this by accident, if you check the history, when trying to post a talk page discussion about where the term should be redirected to. I'm thinking perhaps we could redirect it to Espionage#Methods_and_terminology and make a note about the term there? I'm just not sure if another article might be more appropriate. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete or Merge It is one sentence long.

    ping me. 02:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Merge Let's put this factoid into another article, and add a redirect to there. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete
      WP:DICTDEF fail. Or in this case - Wikipedia is not a FBI terminology glossary. Could be merged elsewhere. Could be expanded (beyond FBI specific scope). But as long as it is a one-line long FBI glossary term - it's a delete.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Struck !vote per modification below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep This is a significant concept in such affairs and it's easy to find sources such as:
    1. Understanding the Intelligence Cycle
    2. Leaders and Intelligence
    3. Handbook of Scientific Methods of Inquiry for Intelligence Analysis
    So, what we have here is a raw article – a
    WP:DICDEF, these are commonly confused with dictionary entries and that policy explains how to tell the difference. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete or Merge, as above,
      WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    BGS National Public School, Hulimavu, Bangalore

    BGS National Public School, Hulimavu, Bangalore (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)

    Throughout its 8-year history, this article has been either extremely promotional (as it is currently), or less than three sentences long. It has never had any citations or sources, and it has questionable notability. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    Lepricavark (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    Lepricavark (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Had the nominator done a
    WP:BEFORE, they could've found more objective details of the school at the CBSE website. MT TrainTalk 09:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I apologize. I had done some reasearch, but I found little more than passing references. What do you mean by the "long standing consensus"?
    WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES due to circular reasoning. LittlePuppers (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The second source goes on to mention the school receiving some top honors (website), enough to make it notable. There's a claim of a British Council award, but I'm having difficulties finding RS. MT TrainTalk 12:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I didn't see that either (all I saw was some recognition of the director and a few passing references). In that case, I might end up rewriting that whole thing - it's had a rather sad history. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear that they have a British Council award, are you mistaking the link to a British Council website for learning English (in the footer) for that? Also, thanks for helping with this. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been able to find sources for the British Council award, so probably it was made up. Either that or it must've been a trivial award. But their name pops up several times in BC's website, so the school must be registered with them for evaluation. There's a print version of Deccan Herald about the school titled Going 'beyond academics' is the school's mantra in the school's website, which I tried to find in their archives, but could not. I believe that article has a host of good information, but accessibility is the issue due to the font size in the scan. MT TrainTalk 08:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Notability guideline for schools is: "In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes." This applies here. Instead of deleting it, I would recommend improving it and fixing its problems. —
    talk
    contribs) 22:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    See above for why I don't think 'this is what usually happens, so we should do that' is a good reason, but after discussion with Mark the train I've somewhat changed my position, and we've done some work to improve the article. I was considering withdrawing this from AfD, but I ended up not (for various reasons such as me having no experience with AfD, that it would probably end up with the same result, and me thinking (at the time, although I'm not entirely sure now) that Mark the train's speedy keep was somewhat similar, that others might have constructive comments, etc.). LittlePuppers (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your opinion of the sources currently in the article? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found out one more source on a dispute regarding the school by The Times of India's e-paper 1. MT TrainTalk 06:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ZenCash (cryptocurrency)

    ZenCash (cryptocurrency) (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 crypto-currency. Wouldn't meet any SNG, and doesn't appear to meet GNG; coverage is blogs, press releases, and their own website.

    π, ν) 00:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • That's nice did you have something to say regarding whether this article belongs on Wikipedia? --Calton | Talk 16:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AfD, why are you making Keep !votes with tangential comments at several AfDs? Widefox; talk 21:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete. Nope, nothing there. --Calton | Talk 16:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete agree with sentiment and evaluation of nom. Current sourcing fails GNG as several primaries, non-independent, and weak
      WP:RS we can't describe the actual topic of why this is different from the others, and just becomes a me-too which is best handled as a redirect to a list. Widefox; talk 21:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The case for 'keep' did not demonstrate notability in the responses to their !vote. If article creator believes they can ultimately find sources that clearly demonstrate notability, I can restore this to the user sandbox upon request. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles "Trip" Dorkey III

    Charles "Trip" Dorkey III (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

    π, ν) 00:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk • mail) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk • mail) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk • mail) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Keep I do not know Mr. Dorkey and I have never spoken with him and am writing the article because I am interested in and read about the legal profession; the article reflects research and references that indicate that Dorkey stands out in the world of “Big Law” that is filled with narrow specialists and as a Renaissance lawyer with numerous highly reported matters across many legal disciplines (unlike a run of the mill fungible name in his profession). His notability comes from a unique long-term mix of legal practice, law firm management, active participation in politics (a controversial issue reported in the article), public service appointments, and civic leadership (multiple footnotes in the 31 footnotes applied and the 4 added ones).
    Dorkey‘s substantive adaptability to changing legal environments and a management role includes the executive committee at Haythe and Curley and head of the U.S. practice and managing partner of the NY office for Torys. (I have added footnotes in Dorkey’s legal experience to document, from articles).
    Sourcing-- I have added two footnotes that relate to newspaper feature stories about Dorkey; in the New York Sun and in Canada’s Globe and Mail and a total of four new footnotes that I believe respond to constructive criticism of originally unincluded items. Dorkey’s highly reported cases appear with verified Lexis citations in his bio page at Dentons and LinkedIn and he has attracted and responded to reporters from the New York Times, several times (as per my footnotes).
    I would appreciate any advice/suggestions as to whether the article would be improved by removal of any footnotes for lack of special or needed substance. Would footnotes 11. 19. 21, 25, 31 warrant such consideration? Ildar2013 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically you would never need to remove footnotes to improve an article: the issue with this article is, even though there are a lot of sources, none of the sources show he's anything more than a partner in a large law firm, which doesn't make him notable. The "Who's Who" guides listed prominently at the start of the article in my mind don't make someone notable; while they're great for marketing successful attorneys, being listed there doesn't make someone pass
    WP:GNG. The Globe and Mail article mentions him but isn't about him. The New York Sun article is the best source, probably, but is more of a general interest interview than demonstrating notability. This article reads to me like he's nothing more than a good attorney who has done what good attorneys do for over 40 years. SportingFlyer talk 22:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks for clarification on footnotes. Perhaps you are unaware that US News and Best Lawyers in America, also referenced in first paragraph is the peer reviewed directory that is generally accepted in the legal profession to include the top 5% of lawyers in the country and I include a reference to that point. The other point that I believe needs to be taken into account is that the long term mix of high level political and public service while maintaining full legal practice is extremely rare. Finally I think there is a more generous and reasonable way to interpret the value of the article in the Globe and Mail; it focuses directly on Dorkey’s forward thinking attitude about lawyer coaching. Ildar2013 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very aware of both US News and Best Lawyers in America and they do not suffice to provide notability for Wikipedia, as any reference to him would be trivial within these articles for WP purposes. In the absence of other sources, Globe and Mail article needs to be about Dorkey. SportingFlyer talk 19:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete. G4 Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    New United States Football League

    AfDs for this article:
    New United States Football League (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 appears to have been in "development hell" for a decade, and never played a game. It may be defunct.

    π, ν) 00:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk • mail) 00:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk • mail) 00:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Merge or Delete The plans have now been abandoned, though the website, Facebook and Twitter are still active. Should've been deleted long ago. But better to merge it. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Query Merge to what?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge with the United States Football League page. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_February_26&oldid=1142616550"