Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 30 March	1 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keiko Nakazawa

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet

WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do not get me started on how disgraceful it is that we have so many times as many articles on Japanese pornographic film actresses than articles on Japanese women judges. The respective counts are 103 articles and 3 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayura Hoshitsuki

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet

WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of our if anything too broad notability guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Toshok

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

Tag for notability since 2012. Searching still doesn't turn up much. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Even the link in the infobox is dead. Previously deleted in a unanimous AFD in 2006 and recreated in 2007. MB 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Subject clearly fails
WP:BASIC with not enough RS. JTtheOG (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, 1 ref that is trivial. Szzuk (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anybody who wishes to write a new, well-researched, properly sourced, and non-copyvio article at this title is free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of electricity supply in bangladesh

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

There is so much wrong with this article that the best way of dealing with it is to delete it. It has obviously been copied from another wiki, and although it is CCbySA I don't know how it would properly be attributed. The article itself is not properly reflected by its title, as it is neither a History, not is it solely about Electricity. There are already many articles here about the energy sector in Bandladesh which probably already cover these topics, see Category:Energy in Bangladesh. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have attributed the article, that is not an issue to delete, but uselessness may be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming it is not copy-vio, the correct title would be Electricity Supply in Bangladesh: it is not primarily a historical article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, it isn't even just about electricity, and if it were there is already Electricity sector in Bangladesh. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - per
WP:TNT. This is a copy of [1] (with formatting issues intact). Sources haven't been migrated. This isn't quite a fork of Electricity sector in Bangladesh (which exists) - but rather the wider Energy sector in Bangladesh (it includes household energy which is non-electrical - e.g. fuelwood stoves). It might be possible to merge, userfy, or improve (with a more proper title) - but someone needs to be willing to dot he legwork.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:TNT. Also the content is available at energypedia. Rzvas (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Category:Energy in Bangladesh has also covered many of these aspects. Rzvas (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no prejudice against recreation in an appropriate form, just not a copy and paste. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — what useful material there is would be better recreated than salvaged. Ralbegen (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rassias

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

notability Mathchecker (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is only a post-doctoral researcher. Does not have a tenure-track at the University of Zurich where he is listed as working, let alone full professorship, position. So well below threshold of notability on this front.

Major contributions to research? Majority of his papers appear in fact to be in low-prestige journals, (some in journals associated with citation rings). I do not see any major research accomplishments on par with mathematicians for which wikipedia pages have been written. Needless to say, he has received no reputable international prizes for his research, etc.

That leaves his "editorial" activities: As was pointed out before, however, "co-editing" a book (whose content is a series of papers by other people) together with a famous senior mathematician is more or less a secretarial type job and is not in itself a criterion of notability.

The web-history of the article is consistent with that of a vanity wikipedia page.

I strongly suspect that it is the subject of the article himself who has constructed the page.

I think this is clear case for deletion. Mathchecker (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ for now. Please can you say why you think he created this page himself? I have seen a lot of blatant and hamfisted vanity on Wikipedia and this does not look like a particularly strong candidate. If there is anything fishy going on here then it is not very blatant. The article was drafted by an IP editor. It had a few false starts but it eventually got promoted to the article space by the usual AfC process. I would agree that the image of the subject is likely to be provided or uploaded by himself, or maybe a friend, but as that user account has not edited the article that is not a huge issue in itself. The user who uploaded the image could plausibly be the IP editor who made the article, given that both were created at pretty much the same time. That would not be ideal but it does not doom the article given that it was created as a draft and got through an AfC review. That IP has not edited it since. If they are an involved editor then editing the draft and then stepping back once it becomes an article seems reasonable behaviour although an explicit declaration of involvement would have helped.
I'm not going to say that he definitely does or does not meet
WP:PROF, which is what the really boils down to, as it is not clear to me how significant his publications are. They are clearly not nothing but I can't say whether they are enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Changing to Delete as the subject has requested it and there is no good reason not to do as they request. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I conjecture that the subject made the article on the basis of (a) the choice and amount of detail which was included, (b) the fact that the IP address is in Switzerland, where the subject is based, and (c) the fact that no other articles are associated with this IP address. Subsequent edits to prevent the article from deletion were made from anonymous IP addresses in Greece. The web history is just very different from that of other wikipedia articles concerning mathematicians, and I do find that suspicious. But whether he made the article himself or not is of course secondary. The subject of this article does not come close to meeting any of the criteria of

WP:PROF that I don't think one has to dig too deeply into his publication record but the story gets worse and worse the more I look... Mathchecker (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete,
WP:PROF#C1 asks for is that the stuff you publish have an established impact. Also, note that his Google Scholar profile is misleading — what it shows as his top-cited paper is actually "The Problem of S. M. Ulam for Approximately Multiplicative Mappings", a publication from 2000 (long before he was active as a professional mathematician) by someone else with a similar name, Themistocles M. Rassias. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
PS see also the recent edit history of prime gap, Helmut Maier, Rassias' conjecture (prodded), Gradimir Milovanović, and John Forbes Nash Jr. for additional promotional-looking editing related to the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't rise to the standard of
talk) 16:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I received an email from Rassias, where he writes:

"Notwithstanding the fact that I feel honored that some people may have thought that a Wikipedia profile could exist for me, I believe it is too early in my career for such a thing. As I am not knowledgeable on how Wikipedia really works in order to proceed myself with it, I would like to ask for your help in order for this page to actually be deleted. If you could do this, I would appreciate it very much if you could please delete this Wikipedia page."

So I think

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Currently does not meet NPROF. If the subject has also personally requested deletion of the article, this is an even clearer delete. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Antisemitism in the International Brigades

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

This page was proposed for deletion a year ago. At the time, the discussion was closed, with a decision to merge this into International Brigades. However, this was not the preferred option of any of the participants in the discussion, and has not been carried out. None of the issues raised at the time has been addressed, the article is still largely original research and synthesis, and reads much more like a undergraduate thesis than an encyclopaedia article. I don't think that this article is salvageable, and repeat my belief that it should be deleted. RolandR (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If, after 13 months, nobody has cared enough to implement the merger, delete it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ample time has been given to merge the article that apparently only one editor actually wanted merged. The article itself literally admits its lack of secondary coverage in the opening sentence: Scholarly research on the antisemitism in International Brigades has been limited; in other words, there is not enough here to establish notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with Shabazz. A redirect into a broader anti-semitism article is okay. Calm Omaha (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 13 months and a prior AfD is
plenty of chances. The topic was marginal to begin with, so not a loss. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, agree with Shabazz and coffman. Kierzek (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ample time to be merged, article needs to be deleted.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Canadian Film Centre

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

Terribly promotional article by an obvious COI editor, which has been here in this condition (without references to establish notability) for far too long. This is basically the text of an organizational website. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a deletion criterion — as discouraged as it is, a COI article's keepability or deletability comes down not to the COI itself, but to whether or not the COI issues are repairable with a scrub job for neutrality and sourceability. This is a very notable organization, however — even if it presents its claim to notability in an advertorialized way that could stand to be rephrased more neutrally than it is, it fundamentally is every bit as central to the Canadian film and television industries as it claims, and the
reliable source referencing to repair it with does exist out there in the real world. So it's definitely a candidate for badly needed cleanup, but its problems are not grounds for deletion per se. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ per
WP:PROMO. Unsourced promotional 'cruft, starting with "a charitable organization whose mission is to invest in and inspire the next generation of world-class Canadian content creators and entrepreneurs in the screen-based entertainment industry"! There's nothing preventing anyone from creating an article based on RS (if indeed the subject is notable), but Wikipedia is not a place to house an org's funding appeals. In the present form, the article is G11 eligible. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm already in the process of cleaning up the promotionalism and adding proper sources, so there's no need for a

WP:TNT here. It's not a question of if the subject is notable. It is notable, and the article just wasn't doing a very good job of showing and sourcing that properly — but cleanup is already underway. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per recent article improvements by Bearcat. The section Canadian_Film_Centre#Training_and_advancement is still unsourced and promotional in nature, however. I suggest it be removed unless it can be sourced properly. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, and with Bearcat's improvements, also now properly sourced. Hoverfish Talk 15:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes
WP:GNG and is no longer promotional. Ralbegen (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as notable - improved references by Bearcat.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Osama Al-Emary

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

WP:ELNO-violating collection of dead links and pieces of his own writing about other things, which are not notability-assisting sources either. He needs to be the subject of content written and published by other people, not the bylined author of content about other things, to be properly sourced as a notable writer. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CV. Szzuk (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. possibly self promotional, not enough good RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Gerald Murray (Talent manager)

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

Murray managed some notable names, but

notability is not inherited and the available sources do not indicate sufficient notability on his own. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs are related to the artists he managed and not the subject of the article
WP:NOTINHERITED. Szzuk (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hedda Martina Šola

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

WP:NOTLINKEDIN: a person is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because her own writing technically verifies that she exists, and even if she can be properly sourced as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article she still isn't entitled to create it herself. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be used for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Jan Allen

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

WP:AUTHOR by referencing it to sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things -- you make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article by referencing it to sources in which she's the subject of content written by other people, but that's not what any of the footnotes here are. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are 11 sources listed. Of these, only source #10 is RS:
- 1. "Jan Allen Named Acting Director of Agnes Etherington Art Centre – Canadian Art". Canadian Art." This is a four-sentence notice of a hiring. Not in-depth.
  2. "Inside Kingston Penitentiary (1835–2013): Geoffrey James". This is an artist's monograph with an afterward by Jan Allen. Printed by her employer Queens U. Not independent.
  3. "Annie Pootoogook : Kinngait compositions." A catalogue on an (excellent) artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source.
  4. "Sorting daemons : art, surveillance regimes and social control. A catalogue on an artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source.
  5. "Condé and Beveridge : class works...Agnes Etherington Art Centre." A catalogue on an (excellent) artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source-- Published by employer.
  6. Nowell, Iris (2001). Joyce Wieland: A Life in Art." This is a book about Joyce Wieland, presumably with a Jan Allen essay. Not in-depth, independent ot about the subject.
  7. "C Magazine / Issue 58" An essay by Jan Allen.
  8. "C Magazine / Issue 52" An essay by Jan Allen.
  9. Dyck, Sandra ([1999]). Jan Allen's Speculative Science." This is the only independent in-depth source about the subject, as far as I can tell.
  10. "Programming: 1990-1999 | Modern Fuel Artist-Run Centre" This is a list of programming that confirms something happened, rather than being in-depth coverage about the article subject.198.58.159.245 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reassess There are now 44 sources listed, includimg the Toronto Globe and Mail and books about museums, public art, and visual culture. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to The Globe and Mail is not about her, but just glancingly namechecks her existence a single time in an article about something else. (And incidentally, there is no such thing as the "Toronto Globe and Mail" — it's just "The Globe and Mail", period.). Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see you have just added a large set of minor mentions, although I stopped counting after I read ten of them. Bios, etc. Where is the in-depth coverage? For example, this set of minutes from the Kingston town council meeting proves just that she went to the town council to present something. Anyone who gets up to speak gets their name in the minutes. Two of the other references beside that one (there were six attached to one statement) are merely her name in a list of four or five names. Example. Those are not reliable sources that contribute to notability, they are just name checks. That is the case for most of the new references. I have not seen one new example of in-depth coverage in the newer 44-reference version. I want to, but cannot see anything of substance in the new refs. The Globe and Mail source mentions here in one sentence along with two other people. It's a name check. If you could point out which ones are substantial in-depth coverage, that would help. Pinging Theredproject, DGG and Mduvekot as they often participate in artist Afds.104.163.158.37 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struggled with this nomination. The article itself is factual, NPOV etc, and all statements are supported by independent, reliable sources. What is missing is two in-depth profiles in a major publication that would make it obvious that the subject meets the GNG. I agree that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. Should the article be deleted then? I'm neither comfortable with the rigid application of rules (
WP:CREATIVE must be rewritten. Vexations (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

CommentIt's true that this is not a badly written page. It's also true that this person plays a role in the Canadian art world that is valuable on may levels. However the point of the encyclopedia not to create a definitive directory of all valuable persons, it is to create a directory of notable persons. The artists she is writing about have a lot of notability. I do not think she does as a curator; anyone filling her position at the gallery would have more than half the references cited here, by virtue of the position.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the keep argument is based on the proposal that we should keep bios on admittedly non-notable people because an editor here thinks they ought to be regarded as a major figure. Admittedly, curators are difficult to document unless they had published works that would qualify as NAUTHOR or NPROF,, but important curators do just that. The minor publications shown here do not. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE needs to be rewritten because it has no ability to handle situations like this one; in fact they might not even fit under CREATIVE and instead should be a category of academic...? Nor can it fairly handle artists who do not produce the kind of work that is collected by museums. And per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Chan we don't have consensus on what "substantial" and "significant" mean. I understand DGG's argument, but would we say the same of a president of a college or university? For the time being, given current WP:CREATIVE I will say Weak Keep in because of the awards, the significant coverage, and in particular because of the Candadian Art news item about her appointment; those pieces are typically good indicators of the stature of the person and/or the position. Also, sorry about the delay in responding: your ping got lost in a flood of alerts from Wikidata... Theredproject (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the entirety of the Canadian Art article, which is 92 words and three numerical figures: "A longtime curator at one of Canada’s leading university galleries has been named its acting director. Jan Allen, who has curated recent exhibitions on Carole Condé and Karl Beveridge, Annie Pootoogook, and Howie Tsui, has been named acting director of the Agnes Etherington Art Centre at Queen’s University in Kingston. A curator at the centre since 1992, Allen has developed more than 100 exhibitions. Since 2007, she has been chief curator/curator of contemporary art at the gallery. The director position was vacated in mid-October by Janet M. Brooke, who had been at the AEAC for 10 years."104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mellencamp Smith

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

Single-sourced

WP:BLP1E, not somebody who's cleared GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BLP1E....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per BLP1E, though, I'm not entirely sure BLP1E applies as this would presuppose there was even one event and I'm not certain even that standard is met. This seems to be a complete failure of the GNG and (maybe)
WP:POLOUTCOMES. Many people have jobs and many people are laid-off from their jobs. Being employed or being unemployed are not indicators of notability, otherwise every living person would be eligible for a WP article. Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete being a low level functionary for the Democratic National Committee is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hastily thrown together text about a subject lacking notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are indeed three or four reliable sources out there that establish that a) she was the DNC head fundraiser and b) she got fired. If this were a CV, it would be one line. Fails GNG.104.163.158.37 (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Absolutely zero indication of meeting
WP:GNG. All that seems to be out there is passing mentions that the subject of this article had a job and then lost it. No matter how high-profile the employer may be, that does not impart notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to

WP:BOLD and change this to point to Ty Dolla Sign discography, I have no problem with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

In Your Phone

)

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

Fails

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect. Valid search term, can be repointed to Ty Dolla Sign discography, as it was in the first place. Ss112 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This song is a single from the album. There is notability behind it backing it up. Yes, it does need more information behind and citation to back up it up. I feel as though it's a keeper. Both artist collaborated on the song and it features another artist. I think that's enough for it to stand alone as an article. The song is in fact released in you search for it on the net. You can purchase the song on iTunes and other places. This is not just a song from the album but a single itself.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment single release (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with whether songs warrant articles, and artists featured on it are also entirely moot. What they need per WP:Notability (music)#Songs (WP:NSONGS) is multiple legitimate secondary sources outside of album reviews that cover this in a fair amount of detail (preferably more than a paragraph) and aren't just based off of artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary (which would basically be self-promotion). There should also be enough information available on the song itself (not just parent album filler) to create more than just a stub. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beach House 3 per nom. The creator's reasoning for keeping the article is obviously invalid, they clearly do not understand NSONGS. Hayman30 (talk)
Redirect to Beach House 3 - notability cannot be inherited. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Lists of television channels (alphabetically)

)

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

This is too broad of a category as per

WP:SALAT

. Despite its length, it is actually not complete. And it is also difficult to maintain, as it is out of date. We already have more appropriate lists by country, see [2]

Rusf10 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I’m sorry to disagree here, but you say in the nomination that the list is; “…. too broad of a category as per
Lists of television channels (alphabetically) and does limit the topic specifically. Second, with regards to; “…difficulty to maintain”, is not every article in Wikipedia difficult to maintain on a day-to-day-, hour-by-hour basis with breaking news and vandalism happening second by second? And finally, as you stated; “… it is out of date” Every article here at Wikipedia is out of date, that is why we have an unlimited amount of volunteer editors updating and improving articles on a second-by-second basis. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

At 95,947 bytes it is too large as per

Rusf10 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Hello

WP:TOOBIG you referred to, you will see the guideline states specifically; “…Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope.”...Sorry again, but we can not pick and choose specific areas of a policy, that do not apply to the specific situation you are referring to and try to apply to that situation.... goes to the old adage; "...a square peg does not fit into a round hole". Nice try though. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello @

Rusf10 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Kind of meaningless. TV market is very much segmented by country and regions. I wouldn't get CNBC Asia in the USA, but largely they carry very similar programming (perhaps some of the CNBC Asia shows wouldn't be on CNBC USA because they're shown on other NBC channels instead) but with a different schedule. Also, the threshold for inclusion is unclear. In the US we have a lot of local independent stations K??? or W??? stations but are not on this list. Again except for some locally produced shows you will find the same programming on another channel in another part of the world. Acnetj (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:SALAT. Unwieldy list that needs to be condensed into separate regional lists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and further annotate with the country of origin. --RAN (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy-based reason to keep? Also, it seems like you support catergorizing them by country, kind of like this or this?

Delete I don't see any utility of this topic beyond what's available in articles linked in Lists of television channels. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't delete something because of its length or how hard you think it is to maintain. I don't see the point of this though, since we have lists of television channels by language and by nation already, but in the past 90 days it has received 10,275 pageviews. So someone must be using it. I agree with Richard Arthur Norton, if it listed the nation the channels were in, it'd be more useful. Add in what company owns them, make it a sortable list, and that'd be even more useful. See how many channels are owned by who and how many nations they are in. Dream Focus 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page views is not a valid reason to keep (see

Rusf10 (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It serves a purpose, people use it, and it has potential to be even more useful. The fact that

List of social networking websites as a sortable list. Dream Focus 00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Rusf10 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If they have a Wikipedia article they can be listed. The fact no one updated it to have everyone, is not relevant. Dream Focus 04:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of television channels, just to maintain the edit history. We already have lists by country and language. Do not reinvent the wheel. Add the entries to those, and when needed (particularly for countries), create new, more manageable lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the grammar police have issued a citation. There is only one list. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
chatter) 01:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:SALAT. Tens of thousands of stations, each of which could be considered their own channel. Many choose to air the same content as other stations, but there are a bunch of notable indie stations that would have to be counted. And if a station is affiliated with a major network like NBC but has local programming, are they to be listed twice? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Blockade (novel)

Blockade (novel) (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 book, no usable sources upon search, just stores and mirrors.
Talk 22:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article, nothing i can find on google, it isn't on sale on amazon but there are a few copies on ebay, doesn't look like it got republished after first copy in 1999. Szzuk (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accept offline refs based on info below. Szzuk (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Austlit shows two good sources [3]. Other reviews available include:

Ferguson, Jean (5 September 1998), "Cheryl Finds GOD In A Twisted Forest Saga", Illawarra Mercury

Caterson, Simon (12 September 1998), "In bed with the greens", Herald Sun

Notable book by notable author. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per DRV discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss how to properly evaluate duffbeerforme's sources. For sure, there's no requirement that sources be on-line, but we need something more than this. For example, the austlit page you cite says:

Works about this Work 1 Human's Changing Relationship to the Non-Human World Deborah Jordan , 2014 criticism — Appears in: Climate Change Narratives in Australian Fiction 2014; (p. 41-55) 2 A Moral Fable in East Gippsland Stephen Prickett , 1998 review — Appears in: The Canberra Times , 5 September 1998; (p. 22) — Review of Blockade Derek Hansen 1998 novel}}

but that doesn't really give us anything to go on. From what I can see, I can't tell if either of these are full-fledged reviews of the novel, or just some mention. Perhaps you could help us out by summarizing these sources or giving some sort of additional details. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy of the first one here. Not that much about Blockade.

Canberra Times, mainstream newspaper, 875 words, review of the book.

Illawarra Mercury, mainstream newspaper, 325 words, review of the book, repuplished 19 June 1999

Herald Sun, mainstream newspaper, 349 words review of the book.

How's that?

Additional, Heaney, Claire (16 January 1999), "The hard sell - Lukewarm reception", Herald Sun finishes with 175 words about the book. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the above seems to indicate sufficient depth of coverage. Adding some cited quotes from the reviews to the article would be a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wow, I thought this discussion was over, but nope- it was just getting started.
Talk 17:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Weakish keep There does seem to be sufficient IRS to get this over the GNG line, and improve the article somewhat. Aoziwe (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. nowhere close to WP:Notability (academics), also multiple removal of SD tags Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Ruprecht

Michal Ruprecht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems like a clear case of
WP:TOOSOON. Also looks like the page was created by Michal himself. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

This was not created by Michal — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichalRuprecht (talk • contribs) 20:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is the creator named User:MichalRuprecht claiming to not be the creator or to not be Michal? Is he impersonating the subject or lying here? I;m confused. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failure to meet
WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Maybe in a few years. Cbl62 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Global Christian Network

Global Christian Network (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)

Poorly sourced article about an online social networking community, which makes some advertorialized claims of potential notability but entirely fails to
WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Notability is not temporary. Assuming the content is true, this could have been notable in 1996-2001. Notability does not disappear by the subject being taken over. It would be helpful of the article said what company took it over. It looks as if it was one of many things that were over-hyped in the dot.com era and then disappeared. Certainly, this needs references, but that is a reason for tagging for improvement, not for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, but it has to be properly established in the first place before it exists at all. Lacking references is not necessarily a reason for improvement tagging over deletion — an article could certainly be kept if somebody could show the evidence that the sources required to properly establish its notability actually exist, but simply theorizing that maybe the proper references might exist, without actually undertaking any attempt to actually find out one way or the other whether they really do or not, is not enough to get a poorly referenced article kept. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few passing mentions but not significant for establishing notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet
WP:WEB and significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject meets Wikipedia's
General notability guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ayu Nakada

Ayu Nakada (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 does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete (Proposer)~~ --Gonta-Kun (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note:AfD fixed.
talk) 06:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in
talk) 06:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Although this player fails
talk) 06:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep. She's actually a famous person in Japan and easily passes
WP:GNG. Google News search in Japanese: [4]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Fails
non-routine coverage can be found within the article already. The fact that this is based on her looks / appearance rather than her footballing achievements is not relevant. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There is surprisingly quite a bit on her on the web and she does seem to pass GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject fails
WP:GNG anyway, even though most of the coverage is for a pretty trivial reason. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete she fails NFOOTY, so the GNG is less relevant for sourcing about here career: we can assume it is routine. In terms of the GNG for things that are trivial: if it is trivial coverage simply about her looks, I wouldn't count that as meeting the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the sources? Articles like this are not "trivial coverage", that's practically a finished encyclopedic article about her. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense Tony. Just because someone dosent pass NFOOTY doesnt mean they can't pass GNG. Passing NFOOTY presumes passing GNG, but it is not true to say that failing NFOOTY presumes failing GNG. Further comments from other editors about coverage being trivial concerns the fact that coverage focuses on her looks rather than her footballing skill not being trivial in terms of depth. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Although it's true she fails
WP:GNG with multiple sourced providing in-depth coverage of her career (starting with this article that Moscow Connection already pointed out). NFOOTY is just used to suggest that players who pass the guideline might be notable, but someone passing GNG confirms notability. JTtheOG (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I tend to agree that she fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - While her rise to fame comes from her soccer career, but as shown by others in this discussion, she has had significant coverage in Japan in regards to her, enough to pass GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. If a rationale is required, then passing
(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Scott McKinley

Scott McKinley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not notable Makro (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, he competed at the Olympics, passing
WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

If that is the case then why not include it I the article. All it consists of is on sentence and one reference. More is needed to prove notability. Makro (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and comment Clearly passes
WP:NOLY so this AFD should be a quick close. @Makro: could help things out by withdrawing his misguided nomination and even worse defense of it which is misleading. The article is two sentences not one and how that can be missed I don't know except possibly this editor is again being disruptive[5]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

John (1803 ship)

John (1803 ship) (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 ship; It existed and sank, that's all there is to it. Even if there were historical records that supported its existence other than this one book, it probably still wouldn't pass gng.
Talk 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found a mention here (4th para.) but more needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Completely NN. There were 1000s of ships. We cannot have an article on every one, just because it happens to be listed in some book, any more than we could allow one on all the 1000s of grantees of the German WWII Knight's Cross. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination - not alot more to be said. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a 30 ton sealing sloop with a crew of 5. I did find this - [6], but it seems most of what is out there is a short blurb on the report. What does possibly give me pause is this being early in Australia's European colonization history - but I don't see the sources here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - loss covered in List of shipwrecks in 1806. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable Lyndaship (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete to List of shipwrecks in 1806. Content already in this article to be expanded from merge of currently separate content. Not sufficiently notable in its own right for a separate article. Note delete rather than redirect due to ambiguation of John (ship). There are many such ships over the years. (If not delete then it would need some non trivial work to create the disambiguation page for the many many such named marine vessels.) Aoziwe (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lesbian. Redirect and selectively merge, as described by XOR'easter. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gold star lesbian

Gold star lesbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

As with
WP:DEFINING characteristic of what they are, because nobody's really going around handing out real gold stars to anyone on this basis. This doesn't need its own standalone article -- what little there is to really say or reliably source about this could be entirely covered off by one or two sentences about it in lesbian itself, without needing its own standalone spinoff article. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect and selectively merge to
talk) 21:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per XOReaster. My gut says that there's probably enough scholarly writing about the definition of lesbian and intra-community relations that an article could live at this address, but also that that content doesn't have to live there, and that the sources currently in the article don't support it. It can always be popped out again later. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Shine School Media Awards

Shine School Media Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:GNG. At the moment, the article is sourced only to the website of the organization. The bit about sponsors is not sourced at all. I did a Google search and found nothing to demonstrate notability, but perhaps others can find something I missed. Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN awards, 3 refs in the article, 2 primary, 1 unreliable. Szzuk (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Mehrooz Waseem

Mehrooz Waseem (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 could have PROD this but since I found some trivial coverage in the RS such as this, I opted to AfD'ed this..
So to me the subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources.
For what its worth, the page was apparently created by the subject herself. Saqib (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub. She is singer. Lot of coverage in video. There are two articles which are related to her. [7] and [8]. In addition to above article this. Needs cleanup which can be done once this deletion discussion is closed. --Spasage (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singers are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they are singers and exists — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:SINGERS.. You should provide reliable sources, not any source to establish the notability. Coverage in the Hindustan Times is merely passing mention. --Saqib (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole article on her. See this [9] --Spasage (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is some questionable dubious source having poor reputation for fact checking. --Saqib (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither htv nor hindustantimes are dubious. It may be stub but not a delete. --Spasage (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid HTV.com.pk is clearly some unreliable source which we should not be citing on BLPs. --Saqib (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that is not the only one cited. there are three. combine all three, you have good idea of the person. --Spasage (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite
gossip-tabloids over BLPs.And, the HTimes cover the subject in the most trivial of all manners.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete-As Saqib said, these paid-spammy-pieces/
WP:NSINGER.No significant non-trivial coverage.Let the rising star rise a bit more aka TOOSOON.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I can't find a single reliable source discussing her in depth (and a BLP requires rather more than a single source). COI issue as per the talk page of this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 16:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_proposal. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Jacques Charlot

Jacques Charlot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing any notability beyond in inherited. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any sources. Transcribing music for someone else does not make the transcriber notable. Nor does getting killed in a war that killed millions. Nor does having a work dedicated to you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i googled for him and found some work as a composer but not enough to satisfy
wp:v, no refs in the article, created by an spa called jacques charlot, no prejudice against recreation with the references. Szzuk (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Our Savior Lutheran Church (St. Petersburg, Florida)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Our Savior Lutheran Church (St. Petersburg, Florida) (2nd nomination)

Our Savior Lutheran Church (St. Petersburg, Florida) (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 congregation with a non-notable school. The article was
Bnng (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Bnng (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT Not notable church/congregation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete -- A typical NN local church, written to puff it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local church and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Tanzeel Akhtar

Tanzeel Akhtar (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 is about a journalist who contributes journalism, References all say that this is what she does but there is nothing here to indicate that any others believe that she is notable. Could be an autobiography, but it still isn't notable. Searches reveal more of the same - the subject writes articles, nobody writes about her. Looks like yet another attempt to big-up crypto currencies. Fails
WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Disagree with Velella's comments - the subject Tanzeel Akhtar has been quoted in the press for her analysis on cryptocurrencies and is considered a credible spokesperson on the subject matter discussion regulation and blockchain. See the links:[10][11][12][13]:CryptoScribbler (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is supported by examples of subject's work and some quotes. Fails to provide in-depth, non-trivial support that establishes
notability.reddogsix (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ceel Gaal

Ceel Gaal (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 one is a bit of a puzzler. Geonames claims this as an "unverified" populated place on the northeast coast, but there's nothing there. It gives as a variant a name which appears to go with another place at the other end of Somaliland. Mapcarta claims a third location, nowhere near the first two. I'm going to call it "fails verification". Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails V. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The Brady Brides (2017)

The Brady Brides (2017) (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 from content in
WP:SPLIT consensus is achieved. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the content in question has already been merged back to the original WP:Split out of the content in question is desired, a proper discussion about splitting should be held at Talk:The Brady Bunch first... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, a fork. Szzuk (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

List of ongoing protests and civil unrest

List of ongoing protests and civil unrest (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)

^^^ 15:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and encourage the creator to work with Portal:Current events, which is not in article space. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:NOTNEWS Acnetj (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:NOTNEWS applies.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not per
WP:NOTNEWS though, I feel the scope of this area is far too broad to be of any real good use. This list also overlaps with other lists and categories that contain the same things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. NOTNEWS.Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It would just be an endless revolving door with different premises instead of an actual encyclopedic topic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@
^^^ 17:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale given by nominator and from a cursory look at sources, no
(non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Engare

Engare (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)

renown
^Talk 15:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - sufficient evidence of notability from significant coverage in a number of reliable sources including publications such as Ars Technica and Rolling Stone which do not predominantly cover video games, and recognition from notable industry professionals such as Robin Hunicke and Rami Ismail as well as verifiable evidence of both Iranian and international industry accolades. As there is a lack of specialised notability guidelines for video games, the general notability guideline should be used as a measure of notability - according to these the subject matter clearly passes. Felineastatine (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - No rationale for deletion.
✉ 20:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Code of the Samurai

Code of the Samurai (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)

Appears by all respects to be a non notable PS2 game. Lacks sources and I couldn't find any. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, seems to fail
WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Daily The Patriot

Daily The Patriot (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 newspaper fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers.. Saqib (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 15:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 15:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Week keep, there is coverage. This newspaper gets published. There is not much coverage, but it can stay as stub. --Spasage (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in posting that there is coverage, you should provide it here and establish the notability. Plethora of newspapers get published in Pakistan, daily but not all qualify for an entry on WP. Should meet the criteria Newspapers. --Saqib (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the criteria. Please see again. If an article is badly written, poor reference and other issues, it does not qualify to be delete. Fix the issue, before tagging it for deletion. --Spasage (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it does meets the criteria, why don't you help establish it? Merely saying something meets the criteria is not enough. --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--No shred of evidence of notability based on near-nil mention across books and other RS.Circulation figures etc. are highly unsatisfactory.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note for closing admin Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_proposal. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircosmo Theory

Aircosmo Theory (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)

Crackpot theory aiming to explain ESP supported by an "article" of 1.5 pages in a
predatory journal. PROD removed by article creator. Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deete - even if it were published in a legitimate journal it would need to receive notice by someone other than its original author to be notable. Agricolae (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Aircosmo Theory is a physics theory" — no, it isn't. And it doesn't rise to the standard of being noteworthy pseudoscience, either.
talk) 16:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

o Delete Originally PRODed to give article creator a chance to improve content. Clearly a non-notable 'idea' with no independent
WP:BOLLOCKS applies here. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Sal Ponti

Sal Ponti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Not notable for
WP:NCORP. Evil Idiot (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 14:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with this actor so not going to vote (for now anyway), but I did find a few sources that address him in-depth. One article earlier in his career when he was using the stage name Anthony Hall, a lengthy obituary (albeit where he was from originally) and a shorter one that appeared elsewhere. 1 2 3
GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete one significant role is not enough to show notability. Also, there are absolutely no reliable sources listed with the article. It is high time that we default delete all articles unless they have at least one reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The Trench (novel)

The Trench (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, this page is ineligible for deletion because it could be merged and redirected to the author of this book, Steve Alten, whose notability the nominator does not question. Furthermore, a search for "Steve Alten"+meg in GNews brings up coverage in more than 320 sources, suggesting that this series of books is most probably notable. Apparently, there is going to be a film of these books with Jason Statham in it. I am under the impression he is fairly well known. A claim that there is "no coverage in reliable sources" certainly needs a great deal of further explanation when there are obviously hundreds of news sources. I also note that most of the cites to book reviews etc were recently deleted from Alten's article for no good reason that I can see. James500 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources found by Coolabahapple below prove that this book is indeed notable. James500 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
Kirkus - "Not exactly taxing on the intellectual side, but a nail-biting summer read." ([14]), Publishers Weekly - "So how bad is this spawn of Meg, which Doubleday declined to publish (albeit perhaps in an earlier version)? About as bad--and as good--as its predecessor." ([15]), Booklist - "Alten's follow-up of Meg (1997) is a fast-paced thriller with many plot twists.", Library Journal - "Nearly a carbon-copy of Meg, this action-packed technothriller reads like a movie script and won't provoke many thoughts but will satisfy fans of Meg and Peter Benchley.", Voice of Youth Advocates - "The Trench is recommended for readers who want non-stop suspenseful action, and who can also suspend a sense of disbelief. " (reviews here). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, refs in this afd satisfy wp:v. Szzuk (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Hank Hamblin

Hank Hamblin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in depth, non-trivial support. Fails
WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in forthcoming elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and
properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before standing as a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. And, in fact, as of right now he's still only a candidate in a primary race that isn't even happening until August, so he's not even the confirmed general election candidate yet either. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of this time, he fails
WP:NPOL. If he gets elected, of course he's notable but not right now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete merely being a candidate for US congress is not a pass on notability, and the sourcing is not substantial enough otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Gary Loyd Stewart

Gary Loyd Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This article appears very sensational and badly sourced. Basically all the juicy "early life" material that makes up the bulk of the material is directly from primary claims made in his book, and can't be regarded as reliably sourced. Leaving that out, there's not enough notability left for an article on the man. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The book/memoir may be more deserving of a page, rather than Stewart. This page talks about family history, rather than about Stewart specifically. If this deserves coverage at all, it would be because the book claimed to find the Zodiac Killer. I suggest gutting any information not pertaining to the Zodiac suspect. Maybe he warrants a mention here: Zodiac Killer. Willie d troudour (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zodiac Killer#Other possible suspects, where a well-sourced sentence exists, which is about what this subject merits. The review I found in the [San Francisco Chronicle]] ran about a month after the pub. date and describes the "flurry of publicity" on cable news surrounding the book's publication, but the review dismisses the book for lack of evidence ("The Most Dangerous Animal of All,' by Gary L. Stewart," but the book review dismissed the book in a few short sentences, ("Now, 45 years after the Zodiac's last known murder, another name has been added to the list: the late Earl Van Best, a San Francisco rare-book dealer who resembled the police composite sketch of the killer. He's been nominated by his son, Gary L. Stewart, a Louisiana business executive. With co-author Susan Mustafa, Stewart has written "The Most Dangerous Animal of All: Searching for My Father ... and Finding the Zodiac Killer." The book attracted a flurry of cable-television publicity when it was published last month. But Stewart's book is short on proof that his father killed anybody, let alone the six Zodiac victims. Instead, embedded in a slow-moving narrative about an adoptee's search for his birth parents, the book offers some interesting local color and odd interpersonal connections from 1960s San Francisco, along with some investigative leads that Stewart thinks need to be pursued.") devoting itself, instead, to reviewing the long list of suspects and proposed suspects. In sum, while there may well be sufficient sourcing (mainly pre-pub publicity) so support an article, our readers are better served by the sentence in the main article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Cornelius Lehane (novelist)

Cornelius Lehane (novelist) (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)

Crime novelist who seems to fail
WP:AUTHOR. Some book reviews but nothing substantial about the person to be found. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment 3 reviews - kirkus, publishers weekly, and critiqueslibres.com, meets Nauthor. Marthadandridge (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Pub. Weekly, Kirkus, are trade journals that review all books flagged by the publisher as significant. Our "3 review" standard for authors requires reviews in publication in other sorts of publications, these could be specialty magazines - it doesnot have to be the Times, but Kirkus doesn't cut the mustard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looked plausible, so I beat the bushes searching. But I can't source it beyond the brief promo for a book talk in a local bookstore that ran in the Washington City Paper and that looks like a book review on the page's reference list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Jennifer Dorogi

Jennifer Dorogi (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. Makro (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is horrendous. Wikipedia is not IMDb, we do not try to create articles on everyone who has ever appeared in commerically produced film and television. Well, that is not our goal, but the level of coverage we have of early to mid 20th century actors and actresses occasionally makes me think we do try to do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. It's not clear that draftify is even a legitimate way to close an AfD, per
WP:AFD/AI, but when have we ever let that stop us? But, even among the people arguing to keep, moving this to draft space where it can get a major overhaul, seems to be what most people think is best. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Poesy Liang

Poesy Liang (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)

Besides being written like an advert, I have serious problems with the notability of the page. It follows the same argument as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helping Angels.
From the "Sources" list (no in-line citations): #1 is 404. #2 Personal site. #3 and #4 are not found. #5 is an organization's site which may be connected to Poesy. #6 is a top-level link to her jewelry site. #7 video interview is dead. #8 and #9 are affiliated sites. #10 and #11 don't list Poesy Liang anywhere. #12 and #13 are dead. #14, #15, #16, and #17 are presumably saved interviews from her website, but those are not found also. #18 is a list of tips from Facebook users. #19 is a personal blog. #20, #21, #22 are dead. #23 is Poesy's personal site. #24 has nothing to do with her and #25 is a link to answers.com search. #26 and #28 are gone, and #27 is dead. #29 is a private blog. #30 and #33 are dead. #31, #32 are 404. #34 is actually a working video, but one television segment isn't enough for notability.
In short, there is not a single reliable source for this article. Thus I am nominating this article for my first AfD. Wqwt (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Wqwt (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Wqwt (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do enough references exist online to extablish notability? Currently it appears the references included in the article aren't enough, but there appear to be others e.g

https://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/01/201079/champion-life

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/07/29/helping-people-see-the-light-through-artworks-in-the-dark/

https://vulcanpost.com/581171/5-malaysians-beat-cancer/

https://www.coindesk.com/art-bitcoin-inspiration-personal-finance/

If this is not established I suggest the article is 'draftified' as more sources may be published or found to establish notability in the future.

John Cummings (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't find any online resources that indicates she meets
WP:NOTPROMO. Wqwt (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, or Draftify is OK too. I did a web search before looking at the article. I saw four good news sources, and many other miscellaneous sources. So, WP:EXIST. She meets GNG, but not CREATIVE. The article needs a very large haircut, ironically.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what WP:EXIST is, since it doesn't link to anything. But maybe she passes GNG with a serious article cleanup to add reliable sources. Wqwt (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
apologies, I meant
WP:NEXIST, meaning sources are out there somewhere.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough reliable sources have been identified to enable
WP:GNG to be passed but the article needs serious work and as its a blp perhaps it should be drafted or userfied if improvement doesn't come soon Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but Draftify. This is a tempting place for applying
WP:CCPOL and should be removed from mainspace immediately. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:TNT
.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 13:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got a kick out of
WP:TNT. The current article has a section on swimming to train her legs and her "most significant claim to poetry". Wqwt (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and move to draft space so article can be cleaned up. Hmlarson (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems there are enough articles to establish notatbility, Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Air Freight

Suburban Air Freight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. Only reference is its own web-site. Searches reveal the usual directory listing, sales pitches and blog and forum mentions but nothing of any notability. It is just a run-of-the-mill small air charter company. Fails
WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:29, 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.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

WAPT (deployment software)

WAPT (deployment software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT and GNG. I can't find a critical mass of third-party reliable sources, nor any evidence that this software meets other plausible notability criteria (it does not appear to be a significant portion of computing history, is not taught in school, etc.). A couple brief reviews and how-to bits don't add up to notability. (sayeth 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco and I happen to agree.) Kleuske (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

quacking noises coming from the article history... Kleuske (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Reconsideration of deletion of WAPT (software deployment)https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_national_de_la_recherche_agronomique (This is a repost from Kleuse page):
I have seen that you have followed the conclusion of 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco in your conclusion. But like I said to 49ers., there is not only English speaking people in this world, and although WAPT is currently mostly running in a French speaking circles, it does not means that in the good'old Europe it has not crossed borders and gone in other countries. English is still the common tongue, and having an English version of the WAPT article, even though it is mostly for non native English speakers does not mean that it is not relevant.
Please, reconsider, thanks, Denis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.197.250.107 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given in my original PROD echoed above by Kleuske. While this may be useful software, that doesn't mean that it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If there are reliable independent sources that confirm the notability of the software per GNG or
WP:NSOFT I would be happy to change my position. But I couldn't find any and none have been produced. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Other items like wpkg or chocolatey do not have the sources you request. How do you justify that? I added some external link. I ask to give up the suppression! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.105.125.212 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kleuske, 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco, I have added to the article a history section and a usage in French school system section with references. Regarding the Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion that was referenced in the initial banner, I think that I have addressed at least two criterias :

"It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction" : I have added a reference of WAPT in the program of a university diploma. And yes WAPT is not used only in instruction.

"It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability." : there is a reference to the certification from ANSSI which is a thorough security revue of the software by a state agency. If you need a review from the software itself, there are tons of blogs in French about it, just switch your google locale and google region to French to check by yourself.

Thanks for your time considering the subject. Cardondenis (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@
sources... If you make claims (of notabiliy), back them up with sources, please. Your say-so means little in this discussion. Kleuske (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@Kleuske: Sorry for my incomprehension... For the second bullet point, the ref WAPT_(deployment_software)#cite_note-3 points to the ssi.gouv.fr site. I think more than enough to have a government agency taking interest in the subject (unless you'd say that France is just one those "sh**ty country" that does not matter much, but I hope not everyone has this stance on the other side of the Atlantic). Most of the technical stuff that is written in the article can be found in the document https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2018/02/anssi-cspn-2018_02fr.pdf that is linked at the bottom of the ref'ed ssi.gouv.fr page. I think that report (please check the header on the first page of the pdf document) fill the "Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source" condition. For the first bullet point, I also added refs about university usage, technical school program. I'll add more links tomorrow, it is getting late here now. Cardondenis (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cardondenis: If I ask for sources, passive aggression ("unless you'd say that France is just one those "sh**ty country") is not a good reply. Neither is regurgitating sources already mentioned. FYI, I'm Dutch. Kleuske (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I think
WP:NSOFT point of view, I think it covers all the criteria (except maybe the geographical area which is currently mostly limited to French speaking countries) Cardondenis (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ingane Oru Nilapakshi

Ingane Oru Nilapakshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page should be deleted because of following reasons:
WP:N Harsh Rathod 09:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Harsh Rathod 09:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plenty of mentions, but little in the way of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one ref in the article which doesn't mention the film. Szzuk (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - Mr X 🖋 23:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kashuv

Kyle Kashuv (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 about a Parkland shooting survivor who is known for meeting the president and developing an app. I am unable to find much biographical content on which to expand the article. Perhaps this could be merged to another existing article, like
WP:ANYBIO. - Mr X 🖋 12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Articles not currently present in
WP:ADVANCED
:
"A conservative Parkland student’s whirlwind trip to D.C. ended in the Oval Office". The Washington Post.

"Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv on meeting Trump, his app to prevent another school shooting". Fox News.

"A conservative Parkland student helps set the agenda in Washington". Miami Herald.

"Meet the conservative Florida high school massacre survivor staunchly against gun control". New York Daily News.

"Spirit Airlines apologizes to Parkland shooting survivor for flight attendant's political statement". Fox News.

"Pro-Gun Parkland Student: CNN Canceled Interview Over Retweet Calling Anchor 'Fake News Hypocrite' ". San Francisco Chronicle.

"Pro-Second Amendment Parkland School Shooting Survivor to Hit Fox News". San Francisco Chronicle.

"Trump Meets With Pro-Gun Florida High School Shooting Survivor in Oval Office". San Francisco Chronicle.

"Fox News Contributor Asks Shooting Survivor If March for Our Lives Is 'Just a Way to Goof Off' (Video)". Houston Chronicle.

"Parkland student Kasky bows out of debate with Kashuv". Fox News.
^{"Pro-Second Amendment student Kashuv calls for debate with March for Our Lives organizer Kasky". Fox News.}

"Parkland voice against gun control". BBC News.

"High schoolers still like their guns, even after Parkland". USA Today.

"These are the Florida students behind the movement to end gun violence". Los Angeles Times.

"The young voices that feel excluded from the March for Our Lives". The Washington Post.
^{"Conservative Survivors and Family Members Snubbed at March for Our Lives". National Review.}

"Time magazine leaves Second Amendment supporters off Parkland cover". Fox News.

"Parkland students clash over school visit by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos". Miami Herald.

"A fake photo of Emma González went viral on the far right, where Parkland teens are villains". The Washington Post.

"Speaking out: Students who survived shooting talk activism". Chicago Tribune.

"Parkland students make the television rounds after massive nationwide gun protests". Tampa Bay.

"The Latest: First Lady Meets With School Shooting Survivor". U.S. News & World Report.

"Some Parkland survivors are underwhelmed by Florida's new gun bill". Tampa Bay.

_{"Days after high school shooting, Florida House votes against ban on assault rifles". PBS.}

_{"March for Our Lives gun control rally expected to draw thousands from around the world". Fox News.}

_{"Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students, teachers reunite for first time since massacre". New York Daily News.}

_{"Florida high school gingerly resumes classes after shooting". Deseret News.}

^^^ 13:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Kashuv has become a Conservative Darling so to speak. I have all the reason (from Facebook feeds and his recent interview with Face the Nation) that he will remain a significant figure in this political landscape. Very notable indeed.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and
trouting for nominator - especially for gutting the article first, then nominating for deletion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep In a Google search, it's easy to get distracted by all the coverage in non-reliable or far-right sources. He is certainly a darling of the right. But mixed in with that stuff, there is significant coverage from mainstream sources such as the Washington Post and Face the Nation - enough to meet GNG in my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Google News is absolutely horrible. Editors should be strongly encouraged to use
^^^ 23:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Well supported as being notable. I haven't reviewed edit history RE "gutting the article first, then nominating for deletion" but that would be very uncool. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 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.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Kaizen Sports

Kaizen Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are 2 refs in the article, 1 primary and 1 relevant but not providing significant coverage. Szzuk (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavachi Michelle Ukegbu

Kavachi Michelle Ukegbu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable - set aside the
peacock label of a food and beverage curator, this is the bio of a cafe owner with a blog. Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the provided references do not appear to be
reliable sources. The ones that may be look like the standard amount of routine coverage of a restaurant from local sources, but nothing substantive that imparts encyclopedic notability of the article's subject. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be reliable coverage that speaks directly about the subject of the page. Willie d troudour (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedSeer

RedSeer (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)

Re-created article about a non-notable company. Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedSeer Management Consulting Cabayi (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails
WP:NCORP. FITINDIA 18:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of political parties in Indonesia. Sandstein 07:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Yatama Party

Abul Yatama Party (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)

Not seeing any notability for party that did not get one seat. But an objection was raised to CSD based upon this [[16][], I disagree that it does pass the CSD test, but still someone has said it may be notable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
csdnew 00:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - no evidence of notability has been offered. Deb (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kotone Amamiya

Kotone Amamiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. Does not meet
WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a perfect example of why we have the guidelines on notability for pornographic perforers and why such guidelines need to be followed. Otherwise we have hallow citations used to make what appears to be a well sourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking citations, as mentioned above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Stephen Held

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Stephen Held

Articles for deletion/Stephen Held (2nd nomination)

Stephen Held (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:GNG. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever thinks this article should be deleted, I doubt you did anything more important than Stephen Held did. Denzel Washington also did graduate work at the American Conservatory Theater, but was cut after the first year, while Held stayed for two. Why don't you just leave it alone? I have authored dozens of Wikipedia pages for over four years, and have done a good job on them at that. --Powder River 1876 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powder River 1876 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 a a recreation of a deleted article with the same source, and the same already busted claims. Contrary to what Powder River 1876 claims, he hasn't "done a good job" at creating articles, he has a rather long list of deleted articles, most of them relating to Powder River County, including things like
Fram (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre

Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't see how this is notable, not significant in-depth sources that I can find. Isingness (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, just one unrelated ref in the article. Szzuk (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalprobaho

Kalprobaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. I looked it up and found a Reddit thread by the same user, so probably just spam posting for attention. QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Internet search turns up almost no results from reliable sources. Nothing indicates it passes either
WP:NFO. JTtheOG (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No coverage in RS. Probably just an amateur production Cesdeva (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Easily fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Appears to be self promotion --Sau226 (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opencola (company)

Opencola (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable subsidiary, consider merging if there is any material that is notable though. Isingness (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Of the references in the article, 3 are (or were) to company sites, two are to a blog, two are 404. This is not a great start. Searching for better references discloses a company directory or two (e.g., Pitchbook) and a bunch of false positives. The only actual notice I find is stuff like this blog post from 13 years ago wondering where opencola went and even then, the author is speaking of opencola -- the promotional soft drink that none of its drinkers knew was connected to a software company. This subject fails
WP:NCORP by any reasonable standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Eggishorn substantial analysis indicating sufficient coverage in eliable sources to pass
WP:CORPDEPTH, a fundamental criterion. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. "Not a notable subsidiary" is not a valid statement, nor does it apply. Open Cola was not founded as a subsidiary, and no such claim is made in the article. Age of references is not relevant to defunct companies. In addition, Cory Doctorow is a notable author, nuf said. Also, any 404'd references are trivially fixed by using the Internet archive! Which I trivially did(You know, web.archive.org). This is easy, trivial, non-lazy lookup work. Please, before you just lazily join the deletionist echo chamber and yell "Delete", prove to me that you are not LAZY! Do some trivial, rewarding work! Lexein (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@
in personal attacks over other editors's efforts, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the standards that apply to deletion discussions and notability. No-one is obliged to prove anything to you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (and possibly redirect to
WP:CORPDEPTH met here. A few mentions in minor sources about a technology they created does not provide sufficient notability for the company itself. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to OpenText. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Captiva Software

Captiva Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Not enough
WP:RS to support this page. Isingness (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, can go to its parent company OpenText. Szzuk (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq Tera

Ishq Tera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't qualify
WP:NFILMS.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs don't support notability. Szzuk (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information Technology Association of Canada

Information Technology Association of Canada (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 lobbying group with material simply trying to inherit notability. Isingness (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, it's been around since 2006 with no substantive additions. It might have been ok back then, but just doesn't meet current standards. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrew Kirtzman

Andrew Kirtzman (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 biographical article is largely written by the subject. Although he disclaims that, it is clear that most of the words in the article are his work. That violated
WP:Promotion and other policies. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Uhmm. Notability is less than border-line here. The reference appear to depend on self published books (and having books published does not make one WP notable unless the books are notable anyway) and other references are to advertorials. So, as Spock might have said “He might be notable Jim but not as we know it.” So Delete. --Aspro (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rather,
Blow it up and start again. Subject may just fall on the right side of notable (primarily for his ownership of property in Fire Island Pines, rather than for his journalism, see [18], [19]) but this article needs a hefty rewrite from someone who isn't the subject himself. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – To paraphrase
New York Times, CBS, New York Daily News, Newsday and numerous other, both printed and televised, sources to justify his inclusion. A need to rewrite is not a reason for deletion. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: So OK, he has got his 15 minutes of fame in a very few publications but is that 'encyclopaedia' notable? Has Jim has noticed, we have a Klingon on the starboard bow and questions if we should wipe it off. written with apologies to Roddenberry Also note: Kirtzman Strategies is a self professed public affairs communications firm. So, if they make such a ham-fisted effort of creating a simple WP article – are they really as competent at what they claim when it comes to communications - if they can't even create a proper article about themselves? Scrub it and don't let them leave it to unpaid WP editors to improve their promotional article for them when they profess to be the experts at communications and pay themselves very well for it ! --Aspro (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established by asserting it, but by
reliably sourcing it. No article can ever claim anything about its subject that exempts them from having to be sourced much better than this is, because notability is defined by the sources used to support the article's statements, not by the statements themselves. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep He's likely notable, but for his real estate interests. Not sure he'd pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:JOURNALIST, but there's in depth coverage of his landholdings on Fire Island. Minor edit: Needs to be scrubbed, though. SportingFlyer talk 05:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody without a direct conflict of interest can do better than this. For the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, notability is less a factor of what an article says than of how well the article
routine "coverage" that doesn't actually establish notability either. While he might be eligible to keep an article that was sourced properly, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to keep him if he's sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Your claim here is just wrong: "For the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, notability is less a factor of what an article says than of how well the article
WP:ARTN. Notability is ONLY a factor of existing sources, not at all of how well the article says anything. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, notability is a property of the subject, I didn't say it wasn't — but the matter of whether the subject has that property or not is measured by whether he has
reliable source coverage in media or not. No article about any subject can ever claim anything that is so "inherently" notable that they're exempted from having to pass GNG just because of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- First of all, the three NYT articles already used are enough for Kirtzman to pass GNG. Hence the nomination is flawed. Furthermore, Kirtzman passes
WP:AUTHOR
on the basis of his book about Bernie Madoff, which was pretty widely reviewed when it came out. Here are a few instances:

MUST READ Jewish Times (Baltimore, MD) - September 4, 2009

First, do no harm Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (PA) - August 30, 2009

BANKING ON BERNIE - A PAIR OF NEW BOOKS DIG INTO 'THE WORLD'S LARGEST PONZI SCHEME' AND THE MAN BEHIND IT San Jose Mercury News (CA) - August 30, 2009

MAN OF STEAL - TWO AUTHORS ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN WHAT WENT WRONG WITH WALL STREET'S SUPERMAN. Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) - August 23, 2009

Reading Madoff: Books that rose from the fall Associated Press Archive - August 21, 2009

Evening Standard: How Madoff got away with it

Ponzi king Madoff had inexperienced regulators eating out of his hands, says book Asian News International (New Delhi, India) - August 12, 2009 Evening Standard, The (London, England) - August 13, 2009

MADOFF WOWED KID PROBERS New York Post (NY) - August 11, 2009

192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the New York Times articles cited here aren't enough to get him over GNG by themselves. Two of them just glancingly namecheck his existence in articles that aren't about him, and the one that is about him is just a
WP:ROUTINE wedding notice. That's not the kind of coverage we require. As to the other sources you list here, I can't speak to whether they support Kirtzman's notability or not without seeing their text. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
What in the world are you talking about? Your position is that you personally have to be able to see the reviews, which you evidently can't because you don't have access to the databases, before you can change your !vote from delete? That can't be right. Keep is the default, so you should be saying that you have to be able to see them before you !vote delete. Anyway, they're reviews of the guy's book in prominent newspapers. That makes him pass
WP:AUTHOR. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No, keep is not the "default" in an AFD discussion. There is no guaranteed right to have a Wikipedia article: the burden of proof falls on the keep side of an AFD debate, not on the delete side. It is not "everybody is automatically presumed notable until somebody can prove otherwise" — it's "the people who want the article to exist have to prove that the topic qualifies to have one in the first place". That is, the burden of proof here is on you, not on me. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I did prove that the guy's notable. I listed a bunch of reviews of his book in prestigious newspapers, which establishes notability per
WP:AUTHOR. You seem to be ignoring this fact. If you won't even take the time to evaluate the sources, why should anyone listen to your opinion on notability? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IP user, you have not "proved" anything. You can't just throw half-formed references into the ring and expect everyone else to track those down and evaluate them for you. If you want to make an argument here, you have to actually make it and support it. Because I happen to have access to Lexis-Nexis, though, I did look for these reviews. Oddly enough, the most comprehensive news database in the world did not have full text for some of these. The ones it did have (e.g., the Evening Standard, the New York Post) were not actually significantly about Kirtzman or his book, mentioning him only in passing or merely quoting him about Madoff. Merely having reviews has little bearing on
WP:GNG as well; where the coverage about him has been significant, it has not been independent and where the coverage has been independent it has not been significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Friend, you're mistaken. There is absolutely no requirement for me to find online versions of references, see
Thus Spake Zarathustra sold only 40 copies of the first edition. Why not bring that up to AfD? In short, you can certainly !vote to delete, but your reasons are out of policy and basically invented. Clearly the closer will take this into account. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
First, where did I say "online"? I did not. Online references are really preferred in AfD discussions because then other editors can
WP:RS states the sources must be properly cited which, as previously mentioned, you did not do. By the by, I have access to Lexis-Nexis through two universities, one public and one private. They are at the highest level of news access (although the legal document access is spotty on some areas) that company offers. I did not "just make up" my interpretation of NAUTHOR, you selectively quoted it to make the presence of reviews seem a stronger point. That's again not very important because those supposed reviews you posted don't check out. To the extent they are verifiable, they are about Madoff with Kirtzman being mentioned in passing or as a SME, they are not about Kirtzman or his book. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aird & Berlis

Aird & Berlis (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)

Tiny, non-notable law firm. No sources here; can't find any significant elsewhere. Isingness (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo (cosmetics)

Cargo (cosmetics) (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)

Unsourced vanity page for a non-notable company; can't find any additional RS in my searches. Isingness (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:33, 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 withdrawn. The nominator withdrew their nomination.
(non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 03:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Martina Sorbara

Martina Sorbara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable beyond the band she is in. This largely unsourced BLP has been tagged since 2010 and searches online turn up no significant sources showing her notability; notability is not inhereted. Isingness (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination due to new sources provided by Bearcat.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article did need referencing improvement, I'll grant that, but it's not true that she has no standalone notability outside the band she was in. She released two solo albums before forming Dragonette, and passes several NMUSIC criteria in her own right for that (this article already existed before Dragonette did, in fact, and I don't just mean before Dragonette's article existed, but before Dragonette even existed as a band.) And when Dragonette's article was first created two years later, the band didn't actually have any notability claim at all yet besides "Martina Sorbara is in it". And considering that we're talking about a notability claim that stretches back to around 2000, Googleability or lack thereof is not a reliable gauge of whether proper coverage was there or not — you need to check archival databases for 20-year-old news coverage, not Google. On a ProQuest search, I've already got the sourcing here up into the double digits, and I ain't done yet — I'm still only in 2002. So, yes, she does have clear and properly sourceable notability as a solo artist prior to Dragonette. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have access to a deeper level of news archives than I, will withdraw the nom. Isingness (talk) 18:24, 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. Sandstein 07:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karthika (actress)

Karthika (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Delete: non-notable former actress whose career lasted from 1985-1989. Quis separabit? 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Information Minister of Israel

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 title of this article suggests that the article will be about the political title "Information Minister of Israel", presumably covering when that title was created or something about the government's decision to create it. Instead, the article is a list of people who have held this position, with no references. I did a Google Books search that turned up many occurrences of the phrase, but nearly always as just a prelude to someone's name. I didn't find any actual information about the position itself, and the original author has provided none. We don't seem to have any subject-specific guidelines on the notability of a position per se to help guide this, so we have to fall back on
talk) 03:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I have no idea about Israeli cabinet positions or Israel, however, it seems to be a legitimate article about an actual cabinet-level ministry within the Israeli Government. It has a corresponding Hebrew Wiki page as well and the creator of the page can easily expand the enWiki. Give them a chance to it.NWWT (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confused keep. The Knesset website page All Ministers in the Ministry of Information (which seems to be the basis of this article) says there's a Ministry of Information, currently led by Gilad Erdan, BUT the Prime Minister's Office states that "the Government resolved to change Resolution No. 14 dated May 19, 2015, to divide the Ministry of Intelligence into two separate ministries—the Ministry of Intelligence and the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Information"[20] (bolding mine) and that Erdan would head it. We also have a Ministry of Strategic Affairs, of which Erdan is listed as the head. (Is there a Disinformation Minister, because he or she's doing a fine job.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Erdan's Knesset profile (click on government roles), he holds three separate ministerial positions. Number 5 7 11:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A ministerial position is inherently notable IMO. Number 5 7 11:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article needs improving (And clarification on the actual title and whether this changed), notability is satisfied Pi (Talk to me!) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does need improvement but it appears to pass notability. -- Dane ^talk 04:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add anything to the keep arguments - but if any ministerial position is inherently notable (something that doesn't seem unreasonable) then should that be noted? I mean it could add a couple of thousand theoretically notable articles (granted, probably not much literature on Vanuatu's historical ministers). Apologies for the ignorance on this - I don't know whether significant categories of non-controversial notability consideration areas are left non-stated in WP. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Set-n-Forget cooker

Set-n-Forget cooker (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)

Unsourced since 2006 and I can't verify any of this. I'm not sure it's notable even if verifiable; the term is generic and it was only marketed for a few years in the 1970s.
π, ν) 03:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Does not meet notability. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
reliable sources can be located. As it happens, I've tried to find sources (and a free photograph) of this Australian product for a number of years, all without success. Current searches turn up no reliable sources at all (still). This is a problem with many pre-internet products, but on the other hand, there are many such (pre-1990s) products for which reliable sources can be found. Time to let it go, much as I wish I could have learned more about this device. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Spadafore

Peter Spadafore (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)

Poorly referenced, and lacking in presumed notability. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. We grant that to city councillors in internationally prominent
reliably sourced to a depth and volume and geographic range of coverage that marks them out as significantly more notable than most other city councillors. But nothing here shows that at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete even the mayor of Lansing is not notable, the level of office Spadafore holds even less so. Also, for what it is worth, all offices that Spadafore has held have involved non-partisan elections so leading with a statement of his party affiliation is highly questionable. Here in Michigan we are keen that all school district and city council positions are non-partisan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going to go with the option that makes everyone unhappy and close this as no consensus. It has been shown by the !keep arguments that the school likely exists and is most likely not a hoax, but no strong argument has been made as to why this topic (TES) is notable. Neither have the !delete arguments made a strong case to overturn longtime practice of keeping secondary schools, particularly public ones. The debate continues... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TES Public School

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/TES Public School

Articles for deletion/TES Public School (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/TES Public School (3rd nomination)

TES Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in independent sources. Fails
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing
WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. is still our practice, confirmed by the most recent RfC, to almost always keep articles on secondary schools. The latest schools AfC said in its conclusions that there was to consensus to change this practice. It's not that the schools are necessarily notable by the GNG, but that WP is best served by our always considering them as if they were notable.

It takes 1 minute to list an AFD if one ignores WP:BEFORE, and about 5 if one does a cursory Google search, and it would take a many hours to do a thorough online searc--and an impossibly long time to do one in print. This gives a great bias towards deletion, especially if multiple articles are nominated in a single day, as here.

We do better to keep all the school articles and spare ourselves the time and effort of debating them--particularly as there were people who cared very much on each side, and each debate can be very extensive. So the practical compromise, is to keep all the high schools and merge all the primary schools. It has proven to work very well. The best way of disrupting AFD so we do not have the time to deal with moreimportant issues like promotional articles would be to abandon it.

For a more detailed argument, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.E Foundation Secondary School. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of circular reasoning. Störm (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nawabshah#Schools, colleges, institutes, NGOs and universities the related school district, which lists the school. No sources have been presented outside of the primary sourced wix website. No news articles. No mention of TES in the Nawabshah page or a TES school in Urdu Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice:
WP:ORGCRIT: "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." No sources presented. Only the WIX website which is: significant coverage: Yes (website details the school), Independent: No (School's website), Reliable: Yes, sort of (self-published), Secondary: No (own website), Pass: 0 (Fail, can't count toward ORGCRIT) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NPOSSIBLE has been met, as all secondary schools are almost assured to have coverage. If we follow the RfC, those nominating these schools for deletion need to show they have done a search and taken into consideration local papers and press, much of which would not be in English and may be offline. There is no evidence that has been done here, so there is no grounds to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

TonyBallioni, setting aside notability concerns for the moment, my main concern with this article as it stands is verifiability. At present, all we have is a Wix.com website for the school. I have looked for independent sources confirming the school's existence, but haven't found any. There may well be some available offline or in other languages, but as things stand we can't even be sure that this school exists based on the sources we have - a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges (2nd nomination) (although admittedly in that case, there was significant evidence that the article might be a hoax). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is enough to verify it isn’t a hoax, along with a brief Google search which also shows that. The concern is whether verifiable information exists, which it most certainly does. I’ve supported deletion or redirection of schools based on failure to meet V. That’s not the case here. The previous AfD also held the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but can't anybody set up a Wix site? I'm not suggesting that this particular school is a hoax, but I am worried that we are opening ourselves up to being used to promote hoaxes if we do not insist on reliable, third-party sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we have no reason to believe that 1) this school is a hoax or 2) that such sourcing doesn’t exist. Primary sourcing is allowed for purposes of verification, which is what we have here. My concern is and always has been that we are opening ourselves up to systemic bias by still all but never deleting Western schools while deleting every school from South Asia. There’s enough here to know it isn’t a hoax and we can reasonably be sure sourcing exists. Keeping it so that someone with access to better sourcing can improve it later is within our mission. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It seems to me that saying we have no reason to believe the school is a hoax is a very low bar and turns
WP:BURDEN on its head. I would be more reassured if the school's website had an official .edu.pk address - it's the fact that it's hosted by Wix that has me worried about the potential for us being taken in by hoaxes if we accept that as verification. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, that is what we do with schools, and also what the RfC commentary recommended if we actually view it as relevant. Those wanting to delete need to show that they've considered the existence of offline sourcing. That obviously hasn't been done here, so even under the RfC, the result is keep. If we go with a no consensus close to the RfC meaning that the status quo prevailed, then we also keep as demonstrated per the past AfD. There is obvious evidence this exists,
WP:IMPERFECT, which is fine. We know it can be improved, and retaining it so that it can be is what policy says should happen. There are no reasons to do otherwise in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

According to
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". Isn't this one of those exceptions? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Here is it listed on a Pakistani District Court website, confirming it exists by an independent judicial source: [21]. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I am at least now reassured that we don't have another Laureate Group of Schools case on our hands. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We are in agreement that all schools must be verifiable, and thank you for raising that point. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nawabshah#Schools,_colleges,_institutes,_NGOs_and_universities. You simply cannot have a decent standalone article with the sort of "sources" that exist for this school. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally don't see a need to upset the apple cart on our standing school notability compromise, but if one did, I would be in agreement with DGG's description of why AfD is not a great place to press the point. Meanwhile, verified secondary school, so, keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a verified secondary school. From personal standpoint, I treat public education establishments the same way as for public infrastructure: airports; train stations; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with DGG and TonyBallioni on this. We tend to keep these even if they are imperfect. -- Dane ^talk 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. Articles about schools must prove notability, not just that they exist. The Banner talk 12:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

that's proven itself as a good way to increase the work at AfD with no particular benefit to the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is proving notability of "no particular benefit to the encyclopedia"? The Banner talk 01:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going neutral on this. Don't think that
WP:GNG should be absolutely irrelevant for any article's notability. There should be atleast 3,4 reliable or secondary sources for establishing notability. Having said that, the latest RFC is lenient on schools so..... I'm double-minded on this one. M A A Z T A L K 09:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. If basically all we can do is verify its existence, we simply do not have the sources to support a verifiable and neutral article. Sandstein 07:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per wikipedia policy on secondary schools. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't such a thing unfortunately,
WP:NSCHOOLS), but not policies. See also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, yes Cordless Larry I meant it complies with guidelines (rather than guidelines) to keep the article (as its a confirmed secondary school).Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Karachi. Sandstein 07:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon askari school system

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Nothing in independent sources. Fails
WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It remains our practice to consider all verified secondary schools as if they were notable. This was confirmed in the latest RfC, and the purpose is to avoid the thousands of debates that would otherwise clog up AfD, and nonethless yield results no better than random. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a school website is not enough on its own to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to
Beaconhouse School System (Pakistan) but there seems to be a school of that name separate from Beacon Askari according to that List of schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice:
WP:ORGCRIT: "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Official website: significant coverage: Yes (school website), Independent: No (school website), Reliable: Yes (self-pub), Secondary: No (school website), Pass: 0 (Fail, can't count towards ORGCRIT) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect to List of schools in Karachi, due to a lack of available independent sources on which to base an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sigh. A year after
WP:SCHOOLRFC and we still don't agree on what it meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

M.E Foundation Secondary School

M.E Foundation Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in independent sources. Fails
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. it is still our practice to almost always keep articles on secondary schools. The latest schools AfC said in its conclusions that there was to consensus to change this practice. It's not that the schools are necessarily notable by the GNG, but that WP is best served by our always considering them as if they were notable. Over the last few days, I revisited my first 2000 AfD (2006-8). At the time, I often !voted delete for schools and other local institutions. The results, however, were essentially random. I looked at other school AfDs, and again the results seem random. It depended to some extent on what sources were easy to find on the web at the time, but much more upon who happened to participate in the discussion. I need to analyze them further, but it is my impression that about 60% of the larger and longer established schools were kept, and about 40% of the smaller and newer ones, with a special bias against outside the US/UK/Canada.

If one really worked at it, for any school established a few years, it was possible to find athletic or other championships, and for any fairly large school, notable alumni; if a US town had a high school, most of the people from its district to the state legislature went there.

Articles were nominated at such a rate that there were often 4 or 5 in a single day; since it takes 1 minute to list an AFD if one ignores WP:BEFORE, and about 5 if one does a cursory Google search, and it would take a many hours to do a thorough online searc--and an impossibly long time to do one in print. This gave a great bias towards deletion--and continues to give a bias towards deletion in most fields if one takes a very strict interpretation of the terms in the GNG. The bias was countered then, and now, by each WPedian taking a strict interpretation for articles they did not want in WP, and a lax one for ones they did.

We would have done as well to keep all the school articles and spare ourselves the time and effort of debating them--particularly as there were people who cared very much on each side, and each debate could be very extensive. So we reached a practical compromise, never enshrined in a formal guideline: we would keep all the high schools and merge all the primary schools. It has proven to work very well. The best way of disrupting AFD so we do not have the time to deal with moreimportant issues like promotional articles would be to abandon it. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Karachi where there's an entry for it and hundreds of other schools, some of which are Foundation schools. No sourcing or news articles to indicate this school is independently notable. No article in the Urdu Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DGG. User:DGG, would you please post that eloquent statement into an essay? --Doncram (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to bring up
WP:GNG: significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. If the school is still worth writing an article about, then DRAFT the article and fill in those GNG sources. You only need two good GNG's, then it can be reinstated. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per AngusWOOF. I am normally very sympathetic to DGG's position (and I typically hold the exact some one as him on school issues and in regards to the RfC, which closed as no consensus.) I've done a search, and I can find no sources to verify any information beyond what appears to be Wikipedia mirrors. I think we have enough to say that it exists, but nothing in the article at this time can be verified. Redirecting serves the purposes of preserving the history, and aids people if they are searching for something. If someone can finding sourcing to verify, it can quickly be recreated without losing text. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this would be considered a good-faith attempt at
WP:BEFORE along with my attempt. Has anyone found other GNG sources? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a listing from the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation verifying the school's existence (see "4.4 Private sector (co-education)") and its location. While agreeing it's important all topics be verified, I continue to agree with DGG that AfD has even more pressing matters. At minimum I really hope nominators will take BEFORE seriously. It took me perhaps three minutes to get this hit (and I do not read Urdu). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it's listed, that only keeps it on the List of schools in Karachi, not anything further detailed to meet GNG. Being on that list means it's a passing mention. Existence is not equal to notability, or per
WP:WITHIN, only a few sentences can be written up about the school at this time, so merge or redirect would be appropriate until the article can be truly developed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not how we handle secondary schools. As you note: 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. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that statement accurately captures current practice, Innisfree987, which is not so set in stone. Historically it's true, yes, but some secondary school articles have been deleted more recently: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School, for example. Other have been kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Current practice:
WP:ORGCRIT: "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." KMC listing: significant coverage: No (only in a listing of schools), Independent: Yes (government posting of private school), Reliable: Yes (government website), Secondary: Yes (government website), Pass: 0 (Fail, can't count towards ORGCRIT) "A single-sentence mention in an article about another company" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Per DGG. While possibly imperfect, I believe schools such as this should remain due to the difficulty in verifying their print sources. And we do have a source that this one exists. -- Dane ^talk 04:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only shows existence, not notability. It's in a list, so redirect to the list. If someone has the research to find non-print sources for the school, they can develop it in the draft article. If they have the sources presentable to here, post it, and we'll look again. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like a reasonable option here. That the school exists is verified, but that's about it, so there isn't really the source material to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we can only barely verify its existence, we simply do not have the sources to support a verifiable and neutral article. Sandstein 07:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moove-it

Moove-it (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 software developer that fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourced only to non-third party sources such as the company's own website and PR Newswire, and a good-faith google search turned up no results that explicitly went into depth about the subject company, with most articles instead talking about business trends or being lists that make trivial mentions of multiple companies ("Top Software Developers in Texas" was one article's title for example). Also note that, given the new NCORP guidelines, special attention should be paid to the lack of in-depth coverage about the company. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The so-called references (links to Google Play, GitHub, and similarly) provide exactly zero indication that this company meets any sort of notability criterion. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:11, 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. Sandstein 07:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Sharif

Darrin Sharif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

City councilman, fails
Rusf10 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There is no policy or guideline that says that city council members are not notable. We have many biographies of notable city council members. Newark is a city of nearly 300,000 people and this biography is well-referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The level of coverage does not pass GNG. This is part of our absurd ovetr coverage of New Jersey politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(there's a halo...) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. A city councillor gets an article in one of two ways: either (a) they serve on the city council of an internationally prominent
blog, not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing wikinotability. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Apparently, Bearcat has manufactured his version of what policy should be and then insists that this article fails that manufactured policy. The relevant policy, IBAN Jbh ^Talk 00:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC))[reply
]

Except that no, I haven't "manufactured" anything.
WP:POLOUTCOMES explicitly reveals that I'm correct about the state of where Wikipedia consensus lands on city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill local government official. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sourcing is thin and Wikipedia should not be teasing biographies out of passing mentions in local papers. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local govt official that doesn't show any notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per
talk) 19:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

What "significant coverage" would that be? None of the references hit all three: passing mentions/routine election news in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- local newspapers -- or short subject-provided bios in unreliable sources that are not independent of the subject. Hell, one of the sources doesn't even MENTION the subject. Also, "presumed" does NOT equal "entitled". --Calton | Talk 04:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

While it's true that Wikipedia does not have a rule that local coverage can never be used as referencing, we do have an established consensus that for certain "small fry" notability claims of purely local significance, where everybody who holds the same role anywhere could simply be expected to have a comparable degree of local coverage, a small smattering of local coverage is not in and of itself deemed enough to get a person at that level of significance into Wikipedia if it's all that can be shown. If all you had to do to get a city councillor over
WP:GNG pass in and of itself, there would never be any such thing as a non-notable business anymore. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Russo

Thomas A. Russo (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)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of
WP:NACADEMIC. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable as an academic (although the case is a bit confused because of a different Thomas A Russo who has well-cited publications on E. Coli) and the article makes no case for notability as a businessman through
WP:GNG and multiple in-depth independent published sources about the subject. All we have is press releases and that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 08:50, 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 redirect to Marriage. Sandstein 07:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marital compatibility

Marital compatibility (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)

Essay. Is there a plausible redirect? TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - How about just redirecting to Marriage. There are several sections that address this essay. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marriage, reluctantly. It is clear that this is a notable topic with many reliable sources available, as can be seen in this Google Scholar search. The current article has nothing worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Corrupted

The Corrupted (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)

See
film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if principal photography has been notable, and no such claim is made, or can be found on Google search. The film has been cast, but that doesn't make it notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:TOOSOON Acnetj (talk) 08:52, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (
talk) 12:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Paiute

Paiute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has no actual unique content that belongs. Since "Paiute" is nothing more than a cover term for linguistically different, geographically non-continguous, and culturally different groups that were never unified historically, it should be nothing more than a disambiguation page for Northern Paiute people and Southern Paiute people. All information that exists on this page should be transferred to one of those subordinate articles. Taivo (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off the distinct tribe and making this article more of a disambiguation page does notw require deletion. That is an editing issue. Certainly sources and English language names have lumped paoute subjects together. See the disambiguation page for example. Clarifications would be welcome if done consiatent with reliable sources. But removal of a soirced ethnobotany section is concerning. Splitting off the dostinct tribes requires maintining the editorial history to comply with licensing. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "ethnobotany" section in the article. And even if there were, the ethnobotany of the two groups is distinct with distinct and easily distinguishable sources. If an "ethnobotany of the Great Basin" article were to exist, it could not without a major part of it covering the Shoshoni who were never part of the "Paiute" nomenclature. There is no such thing as "Paiute ethnobotany" as there is no such thing as "Paiute (anything)" that doesn't also include much that was never "Paiute". --Taivo (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the ethnobotany section see here. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, I had forgotten that. That only applied to the Northern Paiute and since only one plant was included, it was horribly inadequate. Such information should be at
Northern Paiute. Their food supply was far larger than just one root. --Taivo (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you add the cited content to the Northern Paiute article when you removed it from this one? Expanding the coverage of diet would be great. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the deleted material? I'm a specialist in the Great Basin tribes and that comment is the equivalent of saying, "Americans eat grilled cheese sandwiches." Without an all-inclusive description of Northern Paiute diet and food gathering, that is a useless comment. It may or may not be at
Northern Paiute, but if that's all there is, then it needs to be deleted as misrepresentative. --Taivo (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The deleted content was: "===Ethnobotany===

They use the roots of Sagittaria cuneata for food. ref Fowler, Catherine S., 1989, Willards Z. Park's Ethnographic Notes on the Northern Paiute of Western Nevada 1933-1940, Salt Lake City. University of Utah Press, page 44 /ref". I would be shocked if grilled cheese was not mentioned in the article on U.S. cuisine. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend
WP:CRED. Just like every other user, you're expected to give valid reasons for deletion per WP policy. What you've done here is basically stated that this article is nonsense and that we should believe you even though you're anonymous and delete it even though there are hundreds of RS that discuss the concept. That's just not how things happen in WPland, and rightly so. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, deletion isn't needed and would be inappropriate. Splitting off the article requires maintaining the editing history for attribution. The term paiute is also a longstanding if problematic term, some explanation along with disambiguating to the respective tribal groups would be useful. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Regardless of the soundness of noms arguments, none of them are a reason for deletion. Clearly, obviously, the concept of Paiute meets the GNG just from the sources in the article. This GScholar search provides even more evidence, if such is needed. We don't delete articles because they have wrong stuff in them even though it may be easier to do so. We fix the wrong stuff. If nom has sources for their POV, they ought to get to work putting that info in the article rather than trying to have it deleted out of process. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an topic that improperly combines two topics. There is no such thing as "Paiute". The information that is in this article should be in other places. Doing a Google Scholar search for "Paiute" is ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is a Google Scholar search for the term that the article is about more ridiculous than nominating an article for deletion without understanding the Wikipedia:Deletion policy? Probably not, I'd say. Maybe you should withdraw this nomination until you can come up with actual policy-based reasons. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is very simple. There is no topic for "Paiute". Every reference in
reliable sources is specifically to Northern Paiute or Southern Paiute. There is no common reference point to non-contiguous communities. That's why a Google search is meaningless. Read the RS's. Read the article, actually: the entire content is segregated into different sections depending on whether Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, or Owens Valley Paiute is being discussed. There is simply no common ground. It's the opposite of a content fork, which is a false division of topic into separate articles. This is a content merge, where disparate content is falsely merged into a single article. --Taivo (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Fixed per User:FloridaArmy's comment. --Taivo (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for lack of any Wikipedial justification for deletion (also for the sake of a bunch of Western movies). Even the nominator agrees that at least a dab page should exist. The term is bandied about by non-experts, so some explanation is necessary. (They don't call it the Northern Paiute War.) This is a matter for editing, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have already edited the appropriate articles.
Southern Paiute, and Mono people. I probably should have transferred the content to Northern Paiute people and Southern Paiute people, but someone with more skill at moving over redirects can easily fix them. --Taivo (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Close this discussion. I don't have either the curiosity or time to either locate or read the Wikipedia fine print, so one of the skilled Wikilawyers can close this. The matter is concluded. --Taivo (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs performed live by Nightwish

List of songs performed live by Nightwish (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 seems more of a regurgitation of information coming exclusively from setlist.fm rather than being worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedic topic. The intro here and all of its sources just comes from Nightwish. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not the first article with such data, and is very important for Nightwish fans that performance data will exist at one location with the rest of the data for Nightwish. Similar articles exist on Wikipedia including this one for Metallica as well. I believe the intro is relevant, but it can be shortened and link instead to the relevant pages about the band. Please advise. NWWT (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Ok. NWWT (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Copied from another article or not, this page serves a different purpose than the main article about the band. The list is large and should not be merged into the main article in this detailed form, but it seems to be appropriate to be kept on this separate page. The list does not seem to clearly violate a Wikipedia guideline. What made me raise an eyebrow, however, is the "setlist" column consisting entirely of external links that should not be included there in my opinion. How about deleting that column? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote. Nightwish is currently on a 20-year anniversary worldwide tour. This tour features a rare setlist with songs of all albums, including songs that have not been performed over 10-15 years. As Nightwish fans, we watch a lot what songs have been performed recently and follow it very closely. About the setlist column, would you suggest to rename the links to look similar to This one for Metallica? it helps a lot when links are available to see specific data. NWWT (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. To be honest, I am not a fan of external links in articles. References are important, but are these links really
reliably sourcing the information? Setlist.fm rather seems to be a wiki itself. Where are the real sources? If you'd like to include further information, that sounds very good, but why not on the Wikipedia page itself? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

PS: The Metallica comparison does not fit in this specific case, because the reference links of the Metallica list point to the official website of the band. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless good references are found, sorry. I would keep the article, but we do at least have a
WP:RS problem ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing anything resembling notability and only
WP:INDISCRIMINATE matter like a list of songs that have played on a radio station, a list of bands that have had cats on an album cover, a list of songs by Metallica using an electric guitar, etc. Just not seeing it, sorry. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. per
WP:NOR. Lists of songs that bands have written are generally notable. However this is a list of songs performed live by the band (mostly their own songs plus covers) the number of times they have performed that song in their lifetime and a link to setlist.fm (a website where fans publish setlists of specific gigs. The slogan THE SETLIST WIKI - obvious original research). This is merely fan trivia and does not fit the purpose an encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I don't recall any precedent for having articles like this. It's delving into fansite/unencyclopedic territory.
WP:RS's report on set lists here and there, but there's no way they consistently report on every single show - making proper maintenance of such a list impossible. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete What a band (however big) played on a wet Wednesday in Wisconsin is never going to pass notability. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This article is clearly inspired by the Metallica list but per
WP:FANCRUFT, because info does not qualify for an encyclopedia just because fans find it fascinating. That's what self-produced fan sites are for. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

And for what its worth, the Metallica version of the article has now been nominated for deletion, and currently is moving towards a consensus to delete as well... Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_March_31&oldid=1142615718"~~