Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gwent Local History Council

Gwent Local History Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A small organisation, unlikely to have (m)any paid employees. No refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass the notability guidelines DocumentError (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.No RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:57, 30 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. Clear consensus to keep. Should have been closed very early as this is a merge proposal and doesn't belong in AfD. Michig (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction community

Seduction community (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)

It's about time we merged this

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a synonym for pick up artists, and their community - clearly pick up artists are real - this is an actual concept, and they have seminars and meetings and swap notes. The article may need a name change, and the bias dealt with, but its clearly an actual concept, with participants in numerous countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at issue. The problem is that there is no objective distinction between pick-up artists and sexual predators. It's a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of Pick up artists (in fact i hate them), but clearly there is a distinction between PUA (the focus being that this group is about using/prefecting techniques to seduce/pick up women) and sexual predators, who are people who will break the law to get sex. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Removal of this article is nothing less than restraining free speech. Seduction community / PUA is a genuine concept and in my extensive reading on the matter the proponents DO NOT advocate coercion or any other behaviour that is non-consensual. Moves to remove this article appear to be derived from a pro-feminist agenda that is 1: not fully informed about the issues at hand nor 2: willing to accept that men have the right to be fully informed about the issues that matter to them. Thank you for your informed intelligent consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashmanthecat (talk • contribs) — Flashmanthecat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See

WP:FREESPEECH. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep but Rename/Refocus to
  pick-up artist or something similar as "seduction community" does not look to be the common name for this. I'd be more likely to support deletion of the other article, which is all over the place and does not seem to have a clearly consistent definition (not that that's something that needs to be resolved here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think I am OK with that, but there is still the issue of #MeToo and the fact that there is actually no objective distinction between these self-styled pick-up artists and sexual predators: indeed, they are a form od sexual predator. The entire focus of the field is to coerce women into sex. If consent would be freely given, there would be no need for the armoury of psychological tools they use. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Nominator is not asking for deletion, but for a merge. That being said, I agree with Rhododendrites' suggestion of renaming to pick up artists. Nom's suggestion that pick up artists are sexual predators is problematic in a POV sense anyway. Acebulf (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously pick-up "artist" is a concept that has been reported on. Fields with negative coverage (sometimes deservedly) are still fields. Sexual predator is a criminal / legal term and we should not indirectly label people as criminals. BLP violation. GuzzyG (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the concept meets the
  WP:GNG, similarly to how we cover the Suffragettes and the Women's liberation movement in different articles. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep rename to
  WP:COMMONNAME and Rhododendrites Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Obviously notable content, although a rename to pick-up artist sounds like a good idea. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename into pick-up community. As to the initial notion of the nominator, I consider that the sexual predator article is a much more likely candidate for deletion as it has virtually no definable subject and is more likely something for the Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. --eugrus (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it gets ample coverage so its notable. If you want to merge or rename it, that's a different discussion. Dream Focus 18:26, 30 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Palzewicz

Tom Palzewicz (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 candidate for Congress. References are all for his announcement to seek office. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed as passing
  WP:NPOL, and other than that the only other paths for a candidate to get into Wikipedia are (a) to show and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, or (b) to show and properly source that his candidacy is so much more notable than most other people's candidacies that he can credibly claim his candidacy to be a special case. (The textbook example here is Christine O'Donnell, who exploded to such a wild volume of nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is actually at least twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual senator she lost to.) The existence of a bit of local coverage in the candidate's own district's own local media is not enough to deem a candidate notable, because no candidate in any election anywhere ever fails to have that. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day in November if he wins the seat, but nothing stated or sourced here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - as above - nominated only. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:POLITICIAN. -- Dane ^talk 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as the article does not satisfy
  WP:NPOL, non-notable candidate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:02, 30 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. There is agreement that the topic is sufficiently notable. Issues associated with promotion and reliable sourcing can be dealt with through editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potassium polyacrylate

Potassium polyacrylate (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)

Simple cation replacement of existing article Sodium polyacrylate - no support that there is any difference beyond that. Additionally the article is almost a word for word copy of https://www.howtor.com/super-absorbent-polymer-plants-potassium-polyacrylate.html which makes this article more advertisement than informative. PRehse (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I cannot evaluate the copyvio issues at the moment, but searching discloses that this is a reasonably well-known material with a variety of uses distinct from those of its sodium-based analogue. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - regarding the potential copyvio, the author of the Howtor article is Fenglai Dou, while the editor who created the Wikipedia page is User:Doufenglai. This makes me think the contributing editor is the copyright holder. It does mean that the references to the Howtor page aren't kosher - that page is not the editor's source for the information, it is just a mirror (or the Wikipedia page is). Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With further digging, there is almost certainly an undeclared COI. The user reports on his user page that he is Marketing Manager for Ma's Group Inc. The only other citation on the Potassium polyacrylate page is the corporate site of SOCO Chemical, part of Ma's Group, who specialize in Super Absorbent Polymers. At best this is COI, but may even be paid editing. Agricolae (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the detailed info about my career: I work in a trade company. My job is to operate Alibaba.com (a B2B platform) and get inquiries from this website. I submit products (including superabsorbent polymer, water treatment chemicals, Micro algae products, floodbag, etc. ) there and update them. I told this personal information to clarify that, a well-known material established on Wikipedia would not help me or my company. And I would appreciate you if you can stop digging me from now on.Doufenglai (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi guys! Actually, this is my first article on Wikipedia and I really admire PRehse's rigorous (and I like aikido&Kungfu too). About this article (potassium polyacrylate), I want to point out that, potassium polyacrylate is so different from sodium polyacrylate (character, uses, price, you can imagine the differences between NaOH and KOH). And it's necessary to have an own article for potassium polyacrylate. Another side, howtor.com is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License(just like Wikipedia) and there are no copyvio & advertisement issues :) --The guy working in a polymer company since 2014. Doufenglai (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A marketing manager for a manufacturer of the product who created the page based only on their own and their company's writings really should declare a Conflict of Interest as per

WP:AVOIDCOI, both here and on the Talk page of the page itself. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Here's the detailed info about my career: I work in a trade company. My job is to operate Alibaba.com (a B2B platform) and get inquiries from this website. I submit products (including superabsorbent polymer, water treatment chemicals, Micro algae products, floodbag, etc. ) there and update them. I told this personal information to clarify that, a well-known material established on Wikipedia would not help me or my company. And I would appreciate you if you can stop digging me from now on.Doufenglai (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article should be keep casue there're differences between them:https://www.packrain.com/potassium-polyacrylate-vs-sodium-polyacrylate.html. Deflie (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be enough references already and I think it's necessary to keep. Revealor (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough references? How so? It currently has one, an unreference essay written by the page creator on a different on-line platform that it largely copied verbatim. That abysmally fails WP:RS and WP:V. (It used to have a second reference to the company web site of the apparent employer of the Wikipedia creator, who as marketers of the product cannot be viewed as a neutral/independent source.) Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must say this is strange behavior for a chemistry article but all of the keep votes are SPAs - I smell socks which reinforces the promotional vibe.PRehse (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a chemistry (especially isn't a "Simple cation replacement of sodium polyacrylate" as you said.). Potassium polyacrylate's mainly application is water retaining agent --which is an important Drought-resistant solution in agriculture as same as drip irrigation equipment. And I think this would bring more keep votes. (not promotional vibe or "SPAs" stuff.)Doufenglai (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Important' is in the eye of the beholder, and best demonstrated by citation of substantial independent coverage. The only citations now or previously in the article, the only evidence of importance, is one to your own essay, which only reinforces your own interest, and one from a company trying to sell it, which shows it is important to their bottom line, but little else. If this is so important, where is the significant independent reliable coverage, not written by you. Agricolae (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding. If the only issue is lacking of citations, I will post them on article and discussion is down here.Doufenglai (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor making their only-ever edit to Wikipedia even removed the AfD notice from the page before a bot restored it. As you say, very strange for an article on a chemical. I am really torn over this one, because I suspect the chemical itself is notable, but I lack the time or inclination to do the due diligence. However, the page as written is somewhat promotional in tone, lacks any WP:RS, and has formatting problems (lettered sections, a 'tip' that I just removed - Wikipedia doesn't do tips). I would lean toward recommending 'stubify', but I have serious doubts that such an edit wouldn't be repeatedly subverted given the apparent sock/meat puppetry and COI. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I can't find any of your comments about potassium polyacrylate (the title of this article). I know the author of articles is kind of important and digging someone maybe more interesting than do the due diligence a "chemical". But the judgment would be meaningless when you're unfamiliar it, right? Secondly, an IP editor who even removed the AfD notice is not a reason to delete or keep this article at all. (In my opinion, this guy is just not familiar the wiki rules and not like the red frame)Doufenglai (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship is usually not an issue. However, it is important when the page is directly copied from another page - that is at worst a copyright infringement (illegal), and at best plagiarism (extremely bad form), unless the author is the same, in which case it is neither (though still not best practice). That had to be resolved because a copyright violation merits immediate deletion. Seeing that the author was the same immediately removed the concern. However, it also made any reference to that page a circular citation, like citing a Wikipedia mirror of your own edit (or for that matter, Wikipedia does not host personal essays, and you can't get around it by first posting it somewhere else then copying it over with a citation), which is worth noting since it is the only surviving source given. Authorship can also be an issue when there is a COI, and I didn't have to do any digging - you put the information right on you User page. One does not have to be familiar with a particular subject to determine whether it has received substantial independent coverage, and yes, I could tell. Here is a thought, though - you could remove all question by using your expertise and interest to rewrite the article with a more neutral encyclopedic tone, supported by reliable sources that are independent of both you and Ma's group. That would go a long way toward assuaging concerns. Agricolae (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinions patiently. So far I know the issue is lacking of citations, and I will post them on article. Besides, like I said before, a well-known material established on Wikipedia would not help me or my company. Only on alibaba.com, there are more than 700 suppliers sell potassium polyacrylate. (and there're hundreds of B2B platforms in the world) People would buy it everywhere when they need. I mean a fruiterer surely can establish an article about banana on Wikipedia, right? By the way, you use "digging" first then I followed :) Doufenglai (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed would not be surprising were a banana enthusiast to write a Wikipedia page on bananas, but I would expect that banana enthusiast to be aware of sources other than ones they have written themselves, or are on their company's web site. Most enthusiasts cast a wide net for material about things that interest them. What is indeed a challenge for a banana enthusiast is to write an article about bananas that is not enthusiastic, that doesn't for example, call them 'unique', but instead has a neutral encyclopedic tone. Still, that is what a Wikipedia page should be. (As to 'digging', I clicked at the linked reference and read the banner at the top of the page, so not exactly major excavation.) Notability is not established by how many people sell it, but by how many people write substantial independent coverage of it. Google Scholar returns about 1200 hits, and though I haven't opened any of them up, I would have to think some of them would be sufficient to establish notability if only someone would incorporate that material into the article. As an aside a lot of them on the first page have nothing to do with agriculture: I see superconduction, pharmacodynamics, and what looks like electrophoresis, which confirms my suspicion that the current article is giving undue weight to what is just one application of the polymer, like writing an article on sodium chloride and only talking about how much better it makes french fries taste. Agricolae (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for repeat the importance of citations for Wikipedia article. If you have no more objection about my last comments except the "digging thing" and "banana metaphor ", I do suggest to get back to the subject - Are the citations/references of this article available enough to keep. (I just add some citations on the article. )Doufenglai (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you revised my typographical errors, thanks for that. And I think it would be much better if give time to develop. Doufenglai (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are still several problems with the quality of the sourcing. For starters, the current references 2 and 6 are not only incomplete, they are so incomplete that you apparently did not realize they are referring to the exact same publication. And that is not the only problem with them.

self-published source. You have also added a thesis, which helps for notability, but represents a primary source as well. And as I hinted before, the page needs to be more about the polymer and less about the one specific application. Agricolae (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Noted with thanks. I will keep working on it. Doufenglai (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep An obvious chemical concept apparently of some note, quick search on Google Scholar indicates no less than 1024 articles discussing this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:30, 26 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. Sandstein 10:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dart Drug

Dart Drug (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)

Was a non-notable Landover, Maryland based retail drug chain which had no significant coverage outside of the DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia markets. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Point of reference, yes I am aware that Dart was part of a larger company (Dart Group) which owned Crown Books and Trak Auto but they have nothing to do with this AfD they may have their own merits, this is about the merits of the drug retail division which again does not have significant enough cover outside of the DC market to warrant its own Wikipedia article. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep GBook searches pulled up, as the first hits, some prominent cases in which Dart was involved. I think the nominator needed to have looked a little harder. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the GBook references provide any in-depth information on the company. The Pension Book refers to the company in a scandal involving selling the pension scheme but there's nothing in the article referring to this and there isn't a lot of information in the book about the company, failing
  HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Park Davis suit is recounted in the article on Herbert Haft, the chain's founder. In lieu of deletion I would suggest a redirect there if we decide a stand-alone article is not in order. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not much corp indepth, mostly about the court cases. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  talk) 05:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep ok I'm going to go against the grain here, but I think there is significant merit for keeping this and I urge everyone to reconsider your !votes. I argue that Dart Group is a notable entity as a holding company beyond its notable subsidiaries. There is coverage in WSJ, Fortune Magazine, the New York Times #1, the New York Times #2, as well as ample coverage in the Washington Post which has been dismissed as being "Local." This corporation was a Major, Publicly traded corp with over 10k employees. This unreliable source gives significant detail which shows that there is plenty of material that exists on this corporation for an encyclopedic article, only the need to dig it out of news archives etc. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This coverage, first hit in GBooks search, is also quite significant. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the
  WP:GNG, so its notable enough to have an article. The reliable sources mentioned by Fiftytwo thirty clearly demonstrate this. Dream Focus 18:28, 30 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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arin Paul

Arin Paul (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--per nom.And, I've pruned the unreliable sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Does he meet
  WP:DIRECTOR? Are the two shows in India notable? Once has 365 episodes and the other 71, and he directed them all. I see he got some coverage at [1] but no idea if Screen India was ever a notable website. 62 Wikipedia articles currently reference it. Not finding anything else about him. Dream Focus 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom DocumentError (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RS doesn't substantiate him as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The person is not notable, failed
  WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and others. - Mar11 (talk) 14:22, 26 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. A redirect can be created separately. Sandstein 10:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K2-157b

K2-157b (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I understand the premise for the AFD and was on the verge of expressing an opinion to delete. However, in researching the article I came across a
  extrasolar planet. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. At the moment, the sole reference is essentially an entry in a list. Which is where this belongs. We don't need a separate article for every exoplanet discovered, only for the ones which feature something extraordinary that has resulted in significant coverage. Until more information becomes available about this exoplanet, or something about it is found to be extraordinary, it belongs as an entry in a list and no more. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be somewhat more explicit. Is there anything in the article that is not present on the single line in this list? If not, why have an article?Tarl N. (discuss) 16:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep meets
  WP:NOT or with significant bias or factual issues. I'd rather keep this based on good faith on the authors' parts. At a more subjective level, I found the article mildly interesting and would assume others would as well. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I don't think the refs support notability, there are two which look like scientific papers from which the data in this article is deduced. Szzuk (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: I don't see much in this article that can't be covered by a list such as
  List of exoplanets (full). Praemonitus (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'll comment that when I looked for what might reference this page (assuming it was only referenced by the lists it would be redirected to), I got an absurdly long list of articles which didn't obviously relate to that exoplanet. It's been added to {{2018 in space}}, so we get all sorts of unrelated articles pointing to this. If we do redirect it, we should remove it from that template. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I see the argument that there are many exoplanets on wikipedia, (and lists of them) the ones I looked at still had good enough RS to substantiate an article. Clearly if there are bajillions of exoplanets, and many not of note, then we don't need pages for all of them.... they can sit on a list page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Understand the rational, and you are right, there are an infinite amount of exoplanets and as such, we here at Wikipedia, could have an infinite amount of articles addressing each. However, at this time, what we have is a list of specific exoplanets, that this particular one is listed in and which has been confirmed and verified by both secondary and third party reliable sources, and as such becomes notable. And again address the area that there is information about this “rock” . A blue link to the limited amount of information we have on the subject is well within our guidelines and as such believe should be kept. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Deathlibrarian. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:01, 30 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) 07:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tjebbe van Tijen

Tjebbe van Tijen (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 find no references to Tjebbe van Tijen in the media that would support notability. His name arises quite frequently in the European press and, to a lesser extent, the US press but always as the attributed photographer for an image. These articles giving him photo credit are never about him Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Largoplazo, you have had some involvement with this article, so you may have researched notability previously. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep There are many mentions of him in Google Book search. I don't have time to look at them in detail, few are full view, some are not english, but things that stand out are "founded the (short lived) Research Center Art Technology and Society in Amsterdam" - "In Amsterdam, the archives of whoever ventures into the field of politics and culture will sooner or later end up with Tjebbe van Tijen. For many people he is the embodiment of storage mania." - "Artists were early adopters of the web, and by 1999, when the web was a mere six-year-old, curator Tjebbe van Tijen was already ..." - Also, this looks like reliable source. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also Weak Keep. He is in Christiane Paul's Digital Art, which counts for something. I see enough other mentions in Gbooks to say he is interesting and he exists and is maybe a small part of art history based on the sources.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep going with the trend here... He has been very active for a very long time (see exhibitions here [2]) and it seems like he mostly collaborates with others, or works under project names, which is why a straight up google/db search isn't going to get the goods. Theredproject (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep 125 articles on Google scholar some of which he has written, other discussing his work, though not sure he is the actual subject of any of them. Facitva brings up no articles about him. Borderline keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Do have some coverage, even though might not be as strong coverage as we wish to for his contribution is pre internet time - see here [3] and [4].
  talk) 05:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I felt like "weak delete" after looking at web coverage, and then found enough more at Google Books to end up in "keep" territory, based not only on significant coverage (of which there is little on the web) but also what's said in various sound sources about his significance. Before I got to Google Books, I found him cited extensively and mentioned once in the text of this book, I found two sources here and here focusing on a particular graphic he created, and bona fide significant coverage in this article devoted to him. At Google Books I quickly came across this, describing him as ubiquitous in the field of Amsterdam culture and politics, this stating that "For many, Tjebbe van Tijen embodies the Will to Archive, and this, declaring that "his ideas founded the largest counter-movement the Netherlands ever has experienced against city planning. The resistance eventually led to riots ...". He gets around in a variety of fields, and enough diverse, independent sources highlight the impact that he has had that I feel the article qualifies to remain. However, the article ought to be expanded to reflect all of this. Largoplazo (talk) 11:15, 29 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) 07:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smartlook

Smartlook (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)

An article on a start-up firm and its product of the same name. (Note there are other products of this name, such as a facial cosmetic.) The brno.idnes.cz reference is a profile/interview about the firm in its local media. Inclusion of the firm's product in the Princeton researchers' findings of problems with session replay tools has been noted in a reference and elsewhere but I don't see those concerns as sufficient to demonstrate notability for the firm or its product. At the moment, I don't see sufficient available in-depth coverage to satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Non notable minor business, fails
  WP:NCORP completely and no substantial coverage to meet GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 31 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) 07:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mwasiti

Mwasiti (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 performer. Pay-for-edit spam. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She has been nominated for a major music award in her country. Wikipedia is already far too ethnocentric. Let's not further the problem by discounting award nominees from non-Anglophonic countries.--TM

04:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable musician. Possibly fails
  WP:SIGCOV is also an issue. So in short, the artist in question has been nominated multiple times for a regional music award but has yet to win an award for her work, nor has she produced a single or album that has made it onto a national music chart.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've started a side-discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Nomination for major award? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her single “Nalivua Pendo” was number one on the Tanzania radio charts for eight consecutive weeks and won "Best Zouk Song" at the 2009 Tanzania Music Awards. According to
  WP:MUSIC for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" and "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Lonehexagon (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep She meets
  WP:MUSIC for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Just because the article was made by an editor that was paid to do, it does not mean that the article has to be deleted, as any offending sections can be edited. Wpgbrown (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - As per Lonehexagon She passes, as she has had a single that charted "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The positive voters above (not including the one who tried to pull our heartstrings over ethnocentrism) have made convincing arguments on notability in her country's music scene. A "point of view" edit tag should be added or we could rewrite the parts that are obviously from a paid source. If the result of this AfD is KEEP, the closing Admin can contact me at my talk page and I will work on improving the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really the closing admin's job to notify people. Just put this page on your watchlist. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a friendly suggestion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:27, 27 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) 07:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thuso Mbedu

Thuso Mbedu (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. Appears to be part of a big pile of crappy pay-for-edit articles about south african performers created in the past few months. Page reads like a resume (can anybody possibly care about a two-month stint at an acting studio?) Parts of this are a copyvio of https://southafricancelebnews.i-celebnews.com/2017/05/page/90/. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've updated her article with more information and citations, and addressed the concerns of the nominator. She was nominated for an Emmy, has starred in 3 shows, has been profiled by Huffington Post and Forbes. She is regularly reported on, interviewed, and discussed in South Africa news and appears to be extremely popular in that country. The article passes
  WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Lonehexagon (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per improvements by Lonehexagon. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per improvements by Lonehexagon x 2. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:59, 26 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ducsai Bende

Ducsai Bende (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)

Hoax Norden1990 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I added a Not English tag, which was a mistake, because even though I can't understand the article without the use of a translator, it appears there's a date of death in the future. Qualifies for G3. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bombardier

Daniel Bombardier (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)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't find anything to substantiate the notability of this person. There's some coverage in a local newspaper – he had a break-in at his design studio, he doesn't like the council's plans for a garage building, he helped to co-ordinate a local project to promote graffiti on the walls of his town. I accept that a street artist may be notable without meeting the usual expectations of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete the nom is correct: there just aren't any sources out there to establish any kind of notability. The only good source is about him being a crime victim, not an artist.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a significantly redacted version of a much longer article that was a gigantic
  WP:CREATIVE either, but was highly advertorialized and referenced almost entirely to blogs and Facebook or Instagram posts. And no, one piece of local media coverage about a break-in at his studio is not, in and of itself, enough to claim that he passes GNG in lieu of failing creative, either: if you're going for "notable because media coverage exists", rather than "notable because he's accomplished something that objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion criterion", then it takes a lot more than just one or two pieces of media coverage to get there. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Failing
  WP:CREATIVE.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I found a short CBC video piece[7], but that still isn't enough. Theredproject (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG Missing substantive RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. not substantiated by third party reliable sources; not notable, failed
  WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG -- Dane ^talk 18:14, 26 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ofogh Koorosh Chain Stores

Ofogh Koorosh Chain Stores (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)

Ofogh Koorosh Chain Stores is not a notable chain store in iran, I don't see enough sources making it notable Mardetanha (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not pass the
  SSG. KingAndGod 17:45, 31 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hepapressin

Hepapressin (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 created by the person selling this. Online mentions are only promotional and message board comments. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It has been up for a decade and the only references appear to be the book published by (apparently) the editor who created the page and a pair of passing references. It gets exactly zero PubMed mentions, and though there are a few Google Books hits, many of them just come up as related to the topic, not mentioning the drug at all in the visible summary. Those that do look to be passing mention, one saying it isn't available any more, plus one that quotes the web page of, you guessed it, the same editor who made our page and is selling the drug. This needs to go away. Agricolae (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no coverage of this found in the medical literature when searching using PubMed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be a non-notable experimental treatment available only at a single clinic. Acebulf (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no MEDRS refs on this. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not needed Waddie96 (talk) 16:44, 29 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.

Executive Council of Basel-Stadt

Executive Council of Basel-Stadt (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 up-to-date information about a political body, which changes at least every 4 years. Duplicate information in Basel#Politics. ZH8000 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why would you say it's not up to date? It has information about the last election, which took place in 2016. Agree it's a duplicate of what's on the Basel political page, so a redirect without prejudice for a fork is what I'm thinking here. SportingFlyer talk 05:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, it's not up-to-date. It stopped after the first round of the election. In the mean time, the second round has passed and the new government is working – the "Current composition" has not been updated so far. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in principle. Executive body of major sub-national governmental entity (roughly equivalent in powers to a US state) - it is arguable (in theory - I think that it would probably be contested in practice) that every member of this body, past or present, is notable per

• Keep. Functionally the equivalent of the office of governor of a US state, or of a devolved government in the UK. The holders of such offices are notable per
  ISBN 978-3-7190-2597-7. (a textbook on the constitutional and administrative law of the canton of Basel-Stadt). Sandstein 10:13, 31 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.

Live! with Pete Finch (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)

Combination promotional biography/tv show article. I cannot find sourcing that backs up the claims in the article. The article claims that the show is distributed by major cable and satellite providers, but I have found no proof of this. Since the show does not seem to be notable, I don't see any other claim of notability for Pete Finch.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect with selective merge (a sentence or 2,) to
  UCTV (University of Connecticut), station where this show aired. There is some coverage in reliable, independent sources (already on page.) Also, it doesn't confer notability, but Finch's Dad, Bill Finch (politician) was a well-known politician in Connecticut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If it doesn't confer notability, why even mention it?--

Rusf10 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect per E.M.Gregory assuming that article is kept at its AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 15:00, 25 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.

Punjabi wedding songs (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)

Punjab is shared Between India and Pakistan. While GeoffreyT2000 made a biased redirect to Pakistani Wedding songs. It's recommended to delete this redirect. My Lord (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend procedural close. Nominated page is a redirect and any further discussion should happen at
  Pakistani wedding songs, which I have reverted. As for the accusation of "bias", I'm didn't find a justification for it, or any talk page discussion of the matter save for nom's template on GT2k's talk page. --Finngall ^talk 17:48, 23 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. Really just an essay, but astounding it lasted a decade. Given the age I'd love to redirect it somewhere, but I can't find a good target. If anyone can think of one, please let me know and I'll restore/retarget. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classical and quantum conductivity

Classical and quantum conductivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no clear purpose. Either it points to be a historical retelling of electrical conductivity formulas, an introduction to quantum conductivity, or a comparison article between quantum and classical phenomena. Either way it does no reach its purpose. The article is incomplete and it does not discuss the inaccuracies of a classical model, aside from using a few analogies. It is only linked by other articles as a curiosity. Plus no sources. It may be improved, but we might just do better without it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete for reasons stated by MaoGo; I can just barely conceive of a worthwhile article on this topic, but it would be better written starting from scratch. --Steve (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or
  WP:TNT. Reads like an undergrad essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• TNT While the article's content is a mangling of different concepts, there is genuinely enough material for an article to be made here. I would be willing to look at doing the TNT if time permits. Sources should not be hard too find. Acebulf (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could TNT it, but we would have to agree on how we can handle an article like that. Personally, I would prefer to prioritize the rest of the solid state physics articles. --

talk) 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete/TNT per above.
  b} 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Essay. Szzuk (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:29, 29 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Shaw

Nathan Shaw (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 actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Appears to be

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't find any sources beyond the Wakefield Express, which for a seemingly international starring role in a movie suggest the whole thing might be a hoax. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure I'm buying this either; there are almost no sources (let alone illustrating the
  WP:ANYBIO), that the claims made are—unverifiable at the very least, shall we say. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Subject fails
  WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notability stands. Credible sources are given. Makro (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes thelovelygrace.blogspot.co.uk a credible source? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are MANY pages on Wikipedia with far fewer sources. I have included plenty of credible sources that show notability. Just because I included 2 blogspot pages doesn't discredit the others.Makro (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages have no bearing on this AfD. reddogsix (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out a fact. The user claims no sources provide proof of notability when they do. Notability is proven from various sources. Makro (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Makro: Name two. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is worth a read as well, regarding what other articles say compared to this one. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Serial Number 54129: I beg to differ. I believe the sources to be reliable (especially the news sources). Also to point out the YouTube source simple proves his YouTube channel of work. Just like it is a reliable source for every YouTube performer on Wikipedia. If it isn't reliable her then EVERY YouTuber who has a wiki should not have YouTube as a source.Makro (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. It should remain so it can grow. So that other editors can add to it. The only way Wikipedia works is for everyone to add.Makro (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An app that came and went, like many others. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NSOFTWARE completely. No evidence in the article or searches of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:32, 31 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. The rationales for Delete seem to indicate that notability is not (yet) apparent here. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Shroff

Nitin Shroff (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)

Weak claims to fame per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "An exhibition"? Shroff was the first person to bring established Seychellois artists to the
  Venice Art Biennale (he was also a curator). The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment "First person to bring <nationality> artists to <art organization>" does not meet any notability criteria that I'm aware of. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Curating for the Venice Biennale does not make you instantly notable. That is especially the case when there appear to be zero reliable sources available! I did a search in Gnews and Gbooks and came up with a big fat nothing. No sources, no notability. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note' that my vote above was removed by an editor who called it trolling. This is odd as at another AfD a few hours ago, my vote was removed by The Master, the editor above. I would encourage you both to respect the valid votes of other editors.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What I see by this one: [8] is that he participated in Venice Bienalle as an artist, representing the country. This is one of the most important events in art world, it not the most important. This one grants passing
  WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• After a bit of a deep dive, I think we should Delete because the two Venice claims aren't exactly what they claim to be. The first one: that he exhibited in Venice is mostly correct, with a key caveat: he showed at one of 48 different "Collateral Events" that are not part of the central Venice programming, but which happen at the same time. He showed at Palazzo Bembo (See here[9]) with 77 other artists. Some of them are well known, but many are unknown. The curators of the exhibition are not particularly well known either: Francesca Crudo, Sarah Gold, Carol Roll and Valeria Romagnini. Of the 77 artists, the majority are redlinked, which is merely a quick shorthand:

• Comment These [12] may or may not help. They were scanned and provided to me by a friend of the subject when I was trying to write the article and asked if they had anything. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the connection to Thomas Darnell (artist)? You're linking to the archive.org page of Thomas Darnell, who you called a friend just now, but you are also the creator of the Thomas Darnell (artist) Wikipedia page. Something is not right there. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. I said the sources were provided by "a friend of the subject". The subject of the article under discussion here is Nitin Shroff, not me. And obviously Darnell knows him, or he wouldn't have attempted to provide sources when I asked him. Your constant Wikistalking of me is becoming tiresome. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird how you pulled those refs from a "friend of the subject" out of thin air, and that you also created a page on wiki for said friend. It's pretty plain what is going on here, and no amount of personal attacks (I can't read, I'm a stalker, whatever) will help to climb out of that hole. Have a great day!104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "pull them out of thin air", I asked for them. Have you skipped your medication? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who did you ask? How did you know to ask for them? What is your connection to the subject or this friend of the subject? My reading comprehension is pretty good, but it doesn't appear you've actually answered those questions. --Calton | Talk 17:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I initially typed out an explanation, but reconsidered as an AfD doesn't seem the right venue for a discussion of how I discovered a couple of artists and then obtained third-party sources about them. And I'm sure that no matter what I say, my words will be twisted to mean something else. I'm really not interested in participating in this any further. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some much stronger evidence of notability is forthcoming. Even the claims being made are pretty weak. --Calton | Talk 17:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is quite misleading. Shroff did have one work exhibited along with those of 77 other artists at a Venice Biennale collateral event in 2013, not part of the official Biennale. This does not pass 4.b of
  WP:ANYBIO. Independent in-depth coverage of him as a person and/or his works is nonexistent. Although he may well have proposed a Seychelles Pavilion for the 2015 Biennale and was described in one 2014 press release as "a curator at the Venice Art Biennale 2015", he definitely wasn't the curator at the 2015 Seychelles Pavillion, nor was he exhibited there. The two artists selected were George Camille and Leon Radegonde. The curators were Sarah MacDonald and Victor Schaub Wong – see [13]
  .

Another misleading sentence which I have since amended was "His work has been covered in

Airlife Magazine". First of all Airlife is a give-away magazine put out by Montpellier Airport. Secondly and most importantly, it did not "cover his work". (I've now added a link in the reference to a copy of the magazine.) It was an article about a hotel and had one sentence which said: "[Its] exhibition space devoted to contemporary art has had exhibitions of artists such as Leon Radegonde and Nitin Shroff." That's all. Two other exhibitions are mentioned in the WP article. The Context Gallery in Northern Ireland is a small gallery situated inside a theatre and shows work by "emerging artists" [14]. As for the exhibition at Birla Academy of Art and Culture, there's no way of verifying this since the so-called reference is not a reference at all, it merely repeats the claim which it is referencing. Consequently, there is no way of knowing how many artists participated and which, if any of his works were included. This is all that's available on Shroff at the Birla Academy site. In any case, there appear to be no reviews of these exhibitions or his work or published catalogs. He's had a few more exhibitions, but all at very minor galleries/venues, e.g. [15], Finally why is his birth date given as 1967? According to this, he was born in 1977. Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC) (Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC))[reply

]

The actual page for

Air Life Magazine (also created by The Master) deserves its own AfD as it has no notability as a source or publication.104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have merged and redirected Airlife Magazine to a section in Montpellier–Méditerranée Airport and left a rationale at Talk:Airlife Magazine. Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soner Akkaya

Soner Akkaya (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 business person that has never had any reliable sources (that I can tell) and I can find no coverage of them. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If you look at the creator of the article back in 2011, you'll see their only three contributions were to this article, meaning they very likely are that person. Not sure how this article has survived seven years. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:51, 26 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The DuchAz

The DuchAz (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 artist. This was created by a paid editor, soft-deleted at the first AfD, restored, deleted again as a copyvio, and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Not yet notable. Lacks sufficient in depth coverage. Trimmed down to stub from artspam.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:NMUSIC. This editor is reviving quite a few soft deletes, as he is a declared paid editor there may be a reason for this. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete More low quality articles likely created for pay by Rusboot comparable to
  WP:NMUSIC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 24 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.

Wayne State University School of Social Work

Wayne State University School of Social Work (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 only cites its own website, and the material could easily be covered in the WSU article. I don't think this passes notability. I don't know if there's any use in trying to merge it, or if it should be deleted outright. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The creator says they are "in the process of continual edits" trying to chase off that speedy deletion, but they have neglected to add any sources that aren't the school's website. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StewdioMACK: The article was created less than 24 hours before this AfD was commenced. How in the world is a "process of continual edits" to improve the article a point for criticism? To the contrary, such a process is natural and praiseworthy in the early stages of an article like this. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Apologies, did not realise how recently the article was created. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The WSU School of Social Work is a nationally-ranked program, ranked No. 34 among schools of social work. See here. This article was just created and needs work, but perhaps it should be allowed some time to develop before rushing to AfD. Comparable schools of social work have been allowed time to develop articles. Compare
  FIU Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work (ranked #88). Not sure why WSU should be singled out for deletion in this way. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Another ranking site places Wayne State's School of Social Work at #17 nationally for its undergraduate program. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another that ranks Wayne State School of Social Work #2 nationally behind Boston University for its on-line programs. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is specified as not a reason for notability of a topic. This one came to my attention while patrolling because more than 1 article was created yesterday for a WSU department, and both that I found were worthy of merging. The other one is just a copyvio history of the dept and a list of courses. Natureium (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OSE does not mean that reference should never be made to similar classes of articles. To the contrary, it states: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability ..., and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." My citation of comparable schools of social works is wholly consistent with this principle. Given the national rankings of Wayne State's School of Social Work, and its history dating back to 1935 (making it one of the oldest such schools), please reconsider your position here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Move to draft so sources such as the rankings and newspaper articles outside of primary can be added to the article. Leave a redirect to WSU and embedded note in the meantime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: The rankings have now been added to the article. This article now has more than sufficient content for a new article (AfD commenced < 24 hours after creation). I see no valid reason not to allow this article to continue to develop in main space. Cbl62 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have significant coverage in secondary sources to meet

WP:GNG? A ranking is usually a passing mention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This question also applies to the other WSU article you just dePRODed (without fixing anything). Natureium (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An academic program's national ranking by a respected and independent authority such as

U.S. News & World Report Best Global University Ranking is not a mere "passing reference". To the contrary, such rankings are the bedrock upon which academic institutions compete fiercely and upon which professorial and student recruiting and grant funding rise or fall. A search of newspapers.com turns up 1,259 hits for Wayne State's School of Social Work. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

So the articles are where?

WP:ORGCRIT Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Faculties_and_academic_colleges AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I suspect nothing I can say will change your view, but that's ok, we can respectfully disagree. In any event, it remains my view that the

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The idea that Podunk High School should have an article but a nationally-ranked graduate school cannot is, well, simply ludicrous. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

According to WP:ORG "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: [...] * inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists"", it does not count as significant coverage. This is applicable as per WP:NSCHOOL, "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." For your second point, WSU has an article. An individual unit of a school does not need to have an article. Natureium (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:ORG has been recently amended to expressly state that those prescriptive requirements do not apply to schools and that it is sufficient for a school to pass

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be ignored represents Orwellian newspeak, i.e., you are asserting that the WSU School of Social Work is not a school. That argument would have merit if we were talking about a mere academic department within a school or college, but it is incorrect when applied to a separately accredited school or college, even one operating under the broader umbrella of a university. Cbl62 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep the article is sourced well enough to pass
  WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to draft I agree with AngusWOOF that we need independent sources that are substantive and that by themselves rankings are insufficient. If there are other articles that also need to be moved to draft space to be consistent with
  WP:GNG then we'll do that, too. ElKevbo (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not sure what the point would be of moving it to draft, as the article is now well developed with abundant independent sourcing -- more than any of the myriad other articles on school of social work. Compare

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." I'm really at a loss to understand the determined struggle to undermine this newly-created article on a well-respected institution of higher education. Cbl62 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not an independent school; the university already has an article. If this specific unit of the university is sufficiently notable for its own article then the sourcing in the article does not currently reflect that e.g., you claim that the school has a history of "contributing to an important field of study" but there aren't any independent sources supporting that claim.

The basic underlying premise of

WP:N is that we need multiple independent sources that focus specifically on a topic if we're to write an encyclopedia article about it. Frankly, there are very few college and university units - colleges, schools, department, research groups, etc. - that can pass that bar. I imagine that most of those are independently famous (e.g., MIT's Media Lab) or have a lasting and profound influence on their discipline such that even people outside of the discipline have a vague inkling of that influence e.g., the University of Chicago's sociology department and their economics department. So most units, including this one, simply aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. It's not a slight against the unit or its parent organization, just a reflection of the larger context in which we live and the relative importance that we collectively place on publicizing the work and influence of these units. ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Quick clarification: I !voted "Move to draft" as a kindness to the author and other editors interested in this article; the closer is free to interpret it as "Delete" if that is easier or more appropriate. (I'd be fine with moving most articles that fail GNG but have a glimmer of passing at some later date into draft space but that is not a workable, sustainable practice.) ElKevbo (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comments have greater validity in the context of academic departments within a college or university, but professional schools have separate deans and are "independently accredited". It would be a strange encyclopedia, indeed, if we deemed every high school and every community/junior college to be notable, but at the same time denied the notability of a nationally-ranked professional school.
• The fact that most nationally-ranked social work schools (and other professional schools) have Wikipedia articles suggests that your assessment of school notability is far different than the broader Wikipedia community. Under your standard, none of the 31 schools of social work that currently have articles (Category:Schools of social work in the United States) would pass muster as none has the level of independent sourcing that you demand. Indeed, the Wayne article has far more independent sourcing than any of the others.
• The community's broad consensus on the notability of such "independently accredited" schools is reflected in
  WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
  (quoted above), a standard that this article plainly meets.
• For proof that your narrow standard (limiting articles on professional schools within broader universities to profoundly influential institutions such as MIT and U. Chicago) has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community, one need only examine the relevant categories, e.g. Category:Schools of medicine in the United States (> 200 schools with articles), Category:Law schools in the United States by state (> 200 schools with articles), Category:Engineering universities and colleges in the United States by state (> 150 schools with articles), Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States (> 60 schools with articles), and Category:Schools of education in the United States by state (> 65 schools with articles).
• In sum, this is a good and healthy debate, but current community standards do not warrant singling out WSU's nationally-ranked School of Social Work for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct: I do think that the vast majority of all of the articles you've mentioned fail

conflicts of interest (e.g., staff, alumni). Like much of Wikipedia, this is an area that receives little attention outside of a handful of editors and many of those editors are only interested in promoting their employer or alma mater, usually in brief, unrepeated spurts of editing. So articles are created that don't meet our wider standards and allowed to remain only because they slip under the radar. All this to say that my comments and !votes here aren't out of some strange prejudice against this school; I don't think that anyone, especially our colleagues who haven't provided any details or explanation, has made the case that this article (nor most of the ones you've mentioned) pass our basic standards of notability. We've pasted together self-interested, minor sources into a lot of paper mache articles and that, of course, is not structurally sound. ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the clarification. There are plenty of issues where I have a subjective belief that fans have overdone it, e.g., professional wrestling, MMA, anime/manga, but I nevertheless believe that our current methods of assessing community consensus are far preferable to an elitist, imposed-from-above approach to decide which topics "belong" in a "proper" encyclopedia. (BTW, I have zero affiliation with Wayne State.) Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that a lot of those probably do not pass notability requirements, however, there is a much higher likelihood that law schools and medical schools are independently notable apart of their universities, because of the amount of research and public interest work done that draws media attention to those schools. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – well sourced and is notable as shown by others. Corky 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the GNG sources that are "well sourced"? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage cited in the article from U.S. News & World Report, The Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, Chicago Tribune, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Holland Evening Sentinel, and more. That's pretty solid for an article created less than a week ago. And far more than any other article in Category:Schools of social work in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those are local news sources? Natureium (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but U.S. News & World Report, Chicago Tribune, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Holland Evening Sentinel are not local, and the Detroit Free Press is a major metropolitan daily/regional paper. Cbl62 (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was NOT well-sourced until this past weekend when Cbl62 started adding a detailed and sourced History section. See [16] which was what most of the discussion was based on. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that Cbl62 has done an admirable article rescue attempt. In the state the article was originally in, I would have voted to delete, but the article is now much-improved. Neutrality^talk 22:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as stated above it is much improved, and superior to other schools in Schools of social work Category. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:00, 27 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) 07:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Raval (Playback Singer)

Darshan Raval (Playback Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The biggest claim to fame is a participant of a reality show. Not notable enough to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, he seems to have received a fair amount of coverage from the Times of India; clearly they fancy him at least. It may however still be a case of WP:TOOSOON (as even one of those Times articles says, "he might not be a household name yet, but the young singer is slowly getting there"). In any case, the nominator made the correct

WP:G7 if necessary. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with you. Times of India does a lot of PR, without disclosure, so only ToI articles are not good enough to establish notability in my opinion. At best this is the case of

WP:TOOSOON Coderzombie (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep meets
  WP:MUSICBIO
  . Sources other than those in article:

  • Natalia Ningthoujam (17 November 2017). "Album needs lot of maturity: Darshan Raval". Business Standard. Retrieved 2024-05-02.

  • Bhatt, Vrunda R.. "Darshan to Make Singing Debut in Bhai's Film: Amdavadi Darshan Raval Marks His Debut in Bollywood with Prem Ratan Dhan Payo." DNA : Daily News & Analysis. Diligent Media Corporation Ltd. 2015. HighBeam Research. 23 Mar. 2018 via  – via HighBeam (subscription required) .

  • Syeda Eba (17 November 2017). "Expectations of fans scare me: Darshan Raval". Millennium Post. Retrieved 2024-05-02.

  • Ano Patel (13 January 2017). "Darshan Rawal talks about his musical inspirations". Times of India. Retrieved 2024-05-02.

  • And on, and on…

Admittedly much of the coverage was as a result of the PR surrounding the reality show but there is sustained mention of him following the end of the show, though not as much or in as great detail. The success he has had releasing him music on YouTube has been commented on in multiple articles in

WP:MUSICBIO#2 if anyone is familiar with Indian music charts. It was picked up by Sony and is described as "the biggest pop song of the year". The quote is from a PR piece so the description should be taken with a grain of salt but it is an indication that it probably charted if there are Indian charts. Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep the subject meets
  XfD. [reply
  ]
• Keep as Jbh as identified multiple reliable sources coverage that confirm he passes
  WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]