Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 April 4 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. While the notability of an author may be measured by the reach of the books they have authored, there is definitely no consensus here that that is the case for the subject of this article, and no other well-supported claim to notability has been made. Vanamonde (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Garrison (theologian)[edit]

Jim Garrison (theologian) (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)

When I first read this I actually thought I was reading a hoax. But no, this person does exist and is founder and/or director of a couple of universities that do not appear to be mainstream. There are a lot of important unsubstantiated claims in what is now a totally unreferenced BLP, and simply stubbing it would still leave a violation of the BLP policy. The odd thing is that apart from a YouTube and handful of articles he has written in Huff, I can't find anything on the Internet about him that adds up to notability. Strange... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Jim Garrison who writes a lot about Dewey. Is it the same? If not Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep. At least most of the books are mainstream. The Darkness of God: Theology After Hiroshima. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990. is by a major conservative theological and religious publisher, and is in 285 libraries, pretty good for the subject. The others are in similar numbers of libraries, and not by cult publishers. Despite the unusual career, he does meet WP:PROF as an influence on his subject. We have had an unfortunate tendency to discount unconventional academics in religious studies. I share this a little , and might have said delete if not for the Erdmans book. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just being in libraries does not confer notability. There has to be evidence of impact on others. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as several sources are now cited, including a book I just added. This needs to be expanded and improved. It may well be that offline sources are needed here. But this already looks notable to me. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My recent addition was reverted, and is now being discussed on the article talk page. I ask anyone considering the notability of Garrison to check the history for the citation added yesterday as an additional relevant source. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's President of a non-bluelinked "university" that I can source only to press releases - it self describes as an "e-learning platform" in it's 2017 press release. He writes books that libraries own, but our standard WP:AUTHOR is that subject writes books that others write about, review, and cite. I am not seeing that other theologians encounter his work, or that it gets reviews. A proquest news archive search on Garrison + "The Darkness of God" produces nothing. A JSTOR search produces several listings in "books received," but no reviews and no citations. Fails WP:PROFESSOR and WP:CREATIVE, frankly, he looks FRINGE to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per improvements made since nom. Good sources and book ref.BabbaQ (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The improvements have been the addition of subject's published books to the article, but merely publishing a book does not establish notability. The book has to be reviewed or discussed in RS or to be widely cited. Meanwhile the only two citations on the page are to The Sociable and University Herald. Not a single WP:RS has been found, and no editor in this discussion has even asserted that reliable, secondary sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither of the two sources in the article right now are adequate for WP:NBIO. The article in The Sociable is about Ubiquity University, and only has a single quote from Garrison. The University Herald source, likewise, only mentions Garrison once, in association with the university. I also found what's basically directory listing in Huff Post. None of those, alone or in aggregate, are enough to meet WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RoySmith. I still can't see how anyone can reasonably state this passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Canelo Álvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin#Rematch. As User:Toohool says, the content has been merged to Canelo_Álvarez_vs._Gennady_Golovkin#Rematch and it’s necessary to retain the history of this article for attribution purposes. A redirect is thus the way to go with merged-to and merged-from templates (I will add these). Whether the topic warrants a stand-alone article can be discussed on the talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canelo Álvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin II[edit]

Canelo Álvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin II (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)

Cancelled boxing match. No longer notable. Details can be covered in other relevant articles, but pre-event notability for the fight is conditional on the fight actually occurring. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Shea[edit]

Ryan O'Shea (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)

Insufficient coverage for GNG. Most sources are passing-mentions. Nothing in-depth. Local TV host and founder of a small startup. MB 22:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable person. Local TV station and the subject appears to host a "Fall" show. There are around 1.78 million tech startups each year. "BIG" crowd as well as a lot of new articles if that were notable. There just is not enough to make anything more than a poorly sourced pseudo-biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, i opened the refs, it was a mixed bag of nn, trivial mentions mostly relating to the companies. Szzuk (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 14:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 15:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs performed live by Metallica[edit]

List of songs performed live by Metallica (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 Metallica.com rather than being worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedic topic. The intro here and all of its sources just comes from Metallica. Where is the in depth coverage of "songs performed live by Metallica” that treats the list as a group/as a notable subject in its own right? This isn't even a list of songs, it's a list of songs performed live (??). I cannot even see a list like this being included in the main article. In addition to notability, this seems like an 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. per WP:NOTSTATS and 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 Metallica.com. This is merely fan trivia and does not fit the purpose an encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG WP:RS, WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:FANCRUFT, because info does not qualify for an encyclopedia just because fans find it fascinating its available already as is on Metallica.com and can be notated as available on the main Metalica page. NWWT (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - For anyone seeing this debate for the first time, a very similar list for the band Nightwish was also nominated for deletion, and that page's supporters pointed to this Metallica list article as a precedent. It appears that voters from that debate checked out the Metallica list and have decided it could be deleted for the same reasons. Before voting, beware of the other stuff exists fallacy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I also don't see how this information justifies an independent article. I am also not aware of any other artists/groups who have a similiar article on wikipedia. Wikitigresito (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reliable sources generally don't cover every time a band plays every single song, making it impossible to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS. There's also no real precedent for having lists like this - it's delving into unencyclopedic, fansite, WP:NOTSTATS territory. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT. All the sources are from one particular source and that is where fans should be visiting to find this content. Ajf773 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my own words at this other AfD that the nominator (who !voted to keep that one) copy/paste from my comment into this nomination statement. Not sure what to make of that, but this seems to have the same problems as the Nightwish page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I noticed the existence of this list article months ago and wondered if it was appropriate for Wikipedia, so I'm not surprised by the nomination for deletion. Note that in the history of the article, User:Andre666 has almost entirely built and maintained it, so it is a labor of love but pure WP:FANCRUFT, especially since 168 out of 169 sources are from the Metallica website that was built for fans. The information is available there because that is a good place for it. Not so for Wikipedia, where matters of reliable media coverage and verifiability are paramount. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge with Metallica.  M A A Z   T A L K  12:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom BURLEY-XXII 01:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burley22 (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pierre (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guideline for musicians, specifically, no coverage from independent, reliable sources Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
struck vote, see below Atlantic306 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being with Sony is a spurious claim, Atlantic306 (talk), as my research can find no evidence of this being true. An unsourced claim of an association with SONY BMG originated with an edit to this page on 13 Feb 2009 by an SPA editor who is most likely the subject of this article. It is credited to his first album, and yet per my research his first album was recorded for and released by a small vanity Christian label, Beatmart. That label was apparently acquired by Provident, which is owned by Sony BMG. Provident is the umbrella for the distribution of many independent subsidiary properties, and that is being used to make a claim of the Sony association. But that doesn’t mean he has ever been signed to, recorded for, and released for either a major or notable independent label, per the WP:NMUSIC criteria. Just bringing this to your attention in case you want to modify your ivote. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, found his last 3 albums have been on Thinkaboutit label including a 2017 album not mentioned in the article which has not been kept up to date. Have struck my weak keep vote and will reassess after a full sources search which I haven't had time for yet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changing iVote after Atlantic's sources prompted me to search further, using keywords including "album" and "Christian" together with his surprisingly common name, I have expanded the article a little, adding his tour with Winter Jam as warm-up act, and long profile of him that ran in the Orlando Sentinel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Some of the reliable source coverage found by Atlantic306 (talk) are of dubious independence (e.g. anyone can submit a review here: http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/becomeareviewer/) or where for a “donation” you can get press (e.g., see http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/indiemusic/submissions.asp ). It’s tough to distinguish between legit coverage versus user-submitted promotional, and I’d be more comfortable with the integrity of the article if these were edited out of the references. However, the other sources look legit and a major piece in The Orlando Sentinel found by E.M.Gregory (talk) are enough to confirm the subject is notable even if the references can still use some scrutiny. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kayle[edit]

Kayle (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: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 21:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page has been there since 2006. The only reference link is dead. Has a daily average page hit of 4 on wiki. During 2006, nothing was archived and an average page life was 30 days. Hence would not be possible to judge by online references. YouTube hits are not impressive, having said, would not be right to dismiss altogether. Tabletop123 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I was able to find marginally improved coverage about her on a ProQuest search (although I had to work really hard to suss her out of the vastly greater coverage of country singer turned master of flip Kortney Kayle, who is not the same person), I wasn't able to find any coverage beyond suburban pennysavers in Coquitlam and Maple Ridge — but local community weeklies in a musician's own hometown and the very next city over from it aren't enough to get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're the strongest sources on offer. And while the chart position does verify if you go back to the RPM archives to recover the real link, in the 1990s there were so few "adult contemporary" radio stations in Canada that were actually playing current music, instead of still sticking to undead 1970s soft rock, that an artist could easily hit the high middle of the AC charts just by getting played hard enough in one metropolitan radio market even if she literally had no airplay whatsoever anywhere else. So even that chart position doesn't prove in and of itself that she ever got a lick of airplay outside Greater Vancouver — if she had, then she would also have coverage beyond the outer suburbs of Vancouver, which she doesn't. RPM-AC is a much weaker notability-maker than RPM-Hot100, so it can't be an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts her from actually having to have enough significant media coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total failure of the GNG let alone notability guidelines for musicians. We are still suffering from the unwise free-for all, wild west atmosphere that lead to unchecked article creation in years like 2006.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this one looks like heading for deletion, we still seem, from looking at the deletion nominations to have been made on my 60th birthday, a much lower standard for keeping articles about people involved with popular music than we have for people in other fields. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost empty article since 2006. If subject matter was large enough, there would have been expansion over the years, but it appears that she is wildly unknown to the public and coverage on her is very limited; I failed to find media sites reporting on her, and only found a biography paragraph from a website called MapleMusic. aNode (discuss) 16:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Snow keep. It's routine to create articles on attacks and disasters getting massive media coverage. Give it a few days to assess notability then renominate if necessary. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 San Bruno, California shooting[edit]

2018 San Bruno, California shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. wumbolo ^^^ 21:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is already gaining significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including New York Times, BCC, LA Times, etc. This is too hasty to decide. We could eventually merge into YouTube or San Bruno, California history if necessary. Steven Walling • talk 21:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looks to be gathering enough coverage internationally now (watching from the UK here) but hopefully it will turn out to be nothing, would suggest we perhaps wait a little while before coming to a decision Buttons0603 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now (note: article creator). Nomination is premature. (Yes, I know, others will say creation was premature.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This tag for deletion is too hasty. It's also getting international coverage, so it is a notable event. Snidester (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This has considerable coverage and it's simply too soon to be at AfD. -- Dane talk 21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Editors' time would be better spent developing the article. Leave the WP:NOTNEWS arguments for after the news has died down and we have a better sense of what we're dealing with. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you're going to cull all the irrelevant barely above stub disaster articles at WP, this is just another brick in the wall. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: Please read WP:OSE. wumbolo ^^^ 21:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sullay: We've already been over this. The page can be moved later, but not while this discussion is active. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: You, Steven Walling and I have been over this, not anyone else. That's the reason I brought this grande problem into this discussion as well. Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 21:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, this discussion is about whether or not Wikipedia should have an article about the topic, regardless of the page title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page title isn't that much of a question to me, the question is isn't it against our policies to redirect the already written article that people are working on into a newer article? What if some third individual creates an article "2018 San Bruno, California YouTube headquarters shooting"? Do we direct this page into that one? Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 21:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your point, but this is not a space for that discussion. Please stay on topic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Also receiving coverage here in Latin America. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Nomination is too soon per other editors --★Gooseflesh12★ (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or merge - Move to "2018 San Bruno shooting" or merge to History of YouTube. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because Wikipedia is news. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please respond to the nomination, I don't dispute that this has received primary news coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 21:48, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Bondad[edit]

Clint Bondad (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 think he fails WP:N. He's got no significant coverage in any reliable sources, even as a runner-up in some company's fitness competition, with the exception of a big flurry of gushing excitement over how he's Catriona Gray's Hot New Boyfriend. As far as that goes, WP:SUSTAINED applies and he needs to stand up to the test of time before we judge him notable. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nominator. This article subject is not notable at all. Notability is not inherited, so the relationship with girlfriend means nothing. Z359q (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject himself is not notable, and he does not inherit notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED) from his girlfriend.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not inherited. Possibly delete & redirect to Catriona Gray? --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SoWhy 10:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Stagg Party[edit]

The Stagg 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)

Web series about non-notable, erotica photographer. Single somewhat significant mention in sources is a self-penned text in the Huffington Post blog. External links take reader to personal-work websites. The whole affair is simply promotional work. The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindela Figlan[edit]

Lindela Figlan (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)

Biography of deputy leader of a minor political movement, that seems to have used Wikipedia for self-promotion, and as a gazette. He seems to be a bystander rather than a driver of events, and does not seem to have ever held elective office . Gave a "man in the street" interview to Al Jazeera, which is seemingly unaware of his political background, or didn't consider it worthy of mention: [3] Fails WP:Notability Park3r (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 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 redirect to TrueOS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Moore[edit]

Kris Moore (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 find any sources that make notability clear. The article lists "created PC-BSD", and a couple of interviews in connection with that role, but this doesn't seem to have been noticed, or an achievement, to an extent that would make the subject notable. It also states he hosts a podcast but there's zero evidence suggesting notability of the podcast either separately or even combined. My searching also showed that he is elected for 2 years as a member of the FreeBSD Core Team by his fellow committers on the project, but again no evidence of more specific notice of the subject himself being taken by the wider world in connection with this. Apart from that - nothing found. So in summary, a bunch of 3 separate possible grounds for notability are known, but none of them seem strong, and there's no evidence that even the 3 combined have gained the subject wider attention in his own right as needed for WP:NBIO. It seems that we have a handful of weak grounds but no real evidence to show overall notability, and I don't feel that the few tenuous grounds listed, make up for absence of a single evidenced and appropriate ground. While I'm not sure whether or not the subject is notable, I'm leaning more towards doubt. So I'm seeking wider input. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to TrueOS (formerly PC-BSD). I cannot find the significant independent coverage that would be needed to establish notability. However, as the creator of PC-BSD, a redirect would make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect: Both mean the subject does not deserve a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. I did not look into the connection of PC-BSD (TrueOS) but per User:Whpq agree that a redirect would be acceptable. Otr500 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to TrueOS as he is its creator. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Ó Buachalla (historian)[edit]

Liam Ó Buachalla (historian) (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)

One group of articles on local history is not enough to meet WP:PROF,andthe other sources are not enough to meet GNG DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sad case when "notability" is immediately obvious to all scholars in the field but it's very hard to prove by wiki standards.
First, it's not "local" history: Munster was one of the four provinces of Medieval Ireland so history of Munster is as important as e.g. history of Wessex or Mercia.
Second, I must again stress that his articles are quoted as a major contribution to the subject in all standard works starting with Irish Kings and High-Kings by Francis John Byrne: "the Early history of Munster has been treated by Liam O Buachalla" (p. 315). Byrne does not state that it's excellent or whatever, but this supposes that this is an important general work on Munster since he doesn't quote any other articles on early history of the province (other quotations are from editions of sources, an article on law-tracts and later (post-Viking) history). Donnchadh O Corrain in ‘A hand-list of publications on early Irish History’ states the following: "The early history of Munster is the subject of a series of papers by the late Liam O Buachalla in Cork Hist. Soc. Jn. 56 (1951) 87-90; 57 (1952) 67-86; 59 (1954) 111-26; 61 (1956) 89-102. While paying tribute to O Buachalla's pioneering work, one must observe that his treatment of the very early period now requires revision for the Eoganacht kingship of Munster was neither as early or as exclusive as their political propagandists might lead one to believe". While O Corrain admits that O Buachalla's view is too straightforward, the Munster articles are still quoted approvingly in Thomas Charles-Edwards' Early Chiristian Ireland (2000). Pádraig Ó Riain in his book on St Finbarr of Cork (1997) amply quotes O Buachalla's unpublished article, that confirms that his work was still an important contribution 30 years after his death.
The problem with all this is that all his articles were published in JCHAS and were basically unavailable to scholars outside Ireland before JCHAS was online (it happened less than 2 years ago). Lantse (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (not voting wither way) -- Munster was one of 4-5 provinces of Ireland (depending on whether Meath should be counted). However the author's articles were merely in a county journal. The fact that his work requires revision in the light of later research does not detract from it. On the other hand, the publication of a compendium of his papers, apparently long after his death, indicates that historians considered his work important. If anything very weak keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albeit weak. He is mentioned here: "The older studies by Liam Ó Buachalla relating to political developments in the south-west of Ireland deserve credit for what they produced from very unpromising and Scanty material." Early Medieval Ireland, 400-1200, By Daibhi O Croinin. So there's been some impact of his work as noted by others. Could be a passable stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, the refs in the article aren't sufficient but the article creator argues persuasively above - what wp looks for is other people talking about his work and referenced in the article accordingly. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Beltran[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Victoria Beltran (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)

G4 declined due to a new ref [4]. This is still an actress most known for a non-speaking role, according to the article. WP:ENT isn't close to being met. The coverage of "phoning death threats to her husband’s alleged mistress" shouldn't be included at all, and the "blacklisted" claims are entirely unsupported. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone is most known for a role in which they did not speak they are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about mime artists? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly this lady is not notable. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre 14:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Why do editors make nomination on the basis of inadequate sourcing before actually looking to see what other sources are out there. There are plenty which are not mentioned in this article. You can google it yourself and save me the copy and paste effort, a few of them are listed above. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bangabandhu: If you have sources please post them here to support your position. I could only find the references already in the article. There is also the Vice article @Eggishorn: posted. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This BLP is of a non-notable person, that was recreated following a "delete consensus", that has since had no significant improvement of content or sources to assert any notability. It is an assumption of bad faith to "assume" that opposing !votes have not looked (or performed a "Before") for other sourcing. It is "NOT" a requirement to specifically state a search has been performed. I did look and the article showing a "non-speaking role" as well as one "supporting TBA role" and a "TBD supporting role" is about it. This does not even come close to satisfying GNG or "Any biography" to include WP:ENT. As for the source listed in a "keep !vote above, the source mentions the subject along with others and does not provide an exemption to GNG. It could be as easily used concerning Trump's one man anti-gay movement or film critic Danielle Solzman refusing to consider any movie portraying "cisgender people in trans roles". This line of thinking would be simply argued against by Robin Williams, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the many nominations and awards. What about Nathan Lane? An admittedly gay person (not transgender) playing in drag in the hilariously funny movie The Birdcage. Actors "act" and should be judged on those merits, not their real-world life-style no matter what it is, and qualify for a stand-alone article according to sourcing and notability. Otr500 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I really wanted to say "keep" on this, but the sources are either mere mentions, or (as is the case in the Vice source above) they're primary; neither are enough to push this past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - normally, we don't have articles just for people who make page 6 of the Post. Are there better sources? Bearian (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixya[edit]

Fixya (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 website. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:52, 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 Merge and redirect to Toshio Matsumoto. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Visible Is Empty[edit]

Everything Visible Is Empty (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: as non-notable experimental short film. Article created by an editor whose work-product appears to almost entirely have been either deleted for various reasons, including copyright violations and non-notability, or refunded and turned into drafts that have gone nowhere. Quis separabit? 20:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500 appears to have been confused by my statements. Far from refbombing (a charge I find rather unnecessary if not uncivil), I was citing references to make three points: 1) confirming Matsumoto is notable, something many reading this might not be aware of; 2) confirming some of his short films are notable; and 3) advancing the argument this short film is notable. The retros I cited for Matsumoto were not all intended to serve as an argument for this film, thus many of the Otr500s evaluations of those are rather pointless. Some of the retrospective references, however, do have sections on the film. For these and other citations, I might remind Otr500 that WP:GNG states that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, which means that an argument such as "about Toshio Matsumoto and not the subject film" is not sufficient to discount the reference. As I said, I believe there are enough references on the net in English to argue notability, and can add a couple more, including a detailed one by film professor Markus Nornes (a full article about the film: [20]), and some others from the net and Google Books ([21], [22], [23], etc.). As I also said. I have not even begun to search for Japanese print references, because they would require a trip to the library. But just working from what I have on my shelf, the recent catalog to the Eizō no hakken: Matsumoto Toshio no sekai retro at Image Forum selected the film as one of Matsumoto's most important works and has an article on the film written written by Nakajō Shūhei (ja:中条省平).Michitaro (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering that my "evaluations of those are rather pointless" (the ones cited for Matsumoto) is certainly pointless. I didn't know anything about "you", before I started looking at all the references that you presented, but called a spade a spade. Notability is not inherited and I didn't see anyone yet arguing the notability of Matsumoto so plastering a lot of references not related to the subject of the AFD actually proves what point? The "short film" is 8 minutes including the opening and closing credits and is mostly presented with Matsumoto or with his other films. The source listed as #13 gives a multitude of other reviews and The Hand that Wrote Everything Visible Is Empty: The Traces Left by Matsumoto Toshio is on page 28-30. I agree with professor Nornes that the film inspires a kind of synesthesia. Who knows! This might have been the inspiration for the Dennō Senshi Porygon more commonly referred to as the "Electric Soldier Porygon". This source gives more for advancing notability than the others, especially the listed #16, that just highlights the name Matsumoto. After a BS explanation defending all the bogus sources more are added? I can't help it if you list them and someone actually looks at the 16 sources. I might remind the esteemed scholar Michitaro that retrospective references, mentioning along with other films, or attached to the creator of the films, while alright for content, does not advance independent notability and I still think there is just not enough to have a stand-alone article. Otr500 (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Toshio Matsumoto. Not enough by way of either reliable sources or information for a standalone page.--J04n(talk page) 19:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Toshio Matsumoto. A Google search uncovers a retrospective with the same name, during which the film showed,[[24]][[25]] but beyond a series of blogs and film viewing sites, there's insufficient media coverage or literary coverage to suggest this is worthy of a standalone article. This source [[26]] is a blog, but does refer to the film as famous; hence I'm voting merge rather than a delete. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Toshio Matsumoto. Insufficient sources to pass WP:NFILM. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Callan[edit]

Finn Callan (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)

Had a look for sources, and could only find this Dread Central interview. Nothing else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 20-year-old filmmakers are almost never notable, and he is no exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Solari[edit]

Felipe Solari (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 person. No reliable sources that discuss the person significantly can be found. Also, the subject may not pass WP:NACTOR as most of the TV/films are probably non-notable. KingAndGod 17:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:59, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. J04n(talk page) 19:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Webb (newscaster)[edit]

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

Subject fails notability thresholds, as set by GNG and JOURNALIST. He is one of many, many US TV on-air talents. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one ref which is/was his employer. Szzuk (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Journal[edit]

Digital Journal (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 news organization by any definition that we use. Really the 2008 source, the Metro free newspaper, is the only one that's any good. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, i opened all of the refs, it looks a hum drum business, with the refs mentioning how they pay some journalists for submissions and how they set up a new board etc. Notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Superhero Universe[edit]

Marvel Superhero Universe (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)

Premature. Although Disney has put out a press release that they are creating Marvel-themed lands at three parks, there was very little substantive information in the announcement -- there has not even been any confirmation on the themed land's name (from what I can tell, "Marvel Superhero Universe" is just the creator's best guess). At the very least, the article should be renamed to show a name hasn't been confirmed. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't *necessarily* say that the article creation is completely pre-mature, though I would certainly back Aoi's comment that it needs a title change. I feel there is enough to support the existence of the article, despite the vagueness. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:28, 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 keep. per the addition of reliable sources 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Crull[edit]

Kelly Crull (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:ANYBIO, WP:NJOURNALIST. None of the sources available or on the article are discussion in detail, rather just job announcements, failing WP:SIGCOV. John from Idegon (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have created a lot of bios, but journalism is outside of my wheelhouse. I was unaware that job announcements do not count as WP:RS. Is there a policy or guideline in this regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added more information and several more sources. She is a longtime sports commentator who regularly appears on television for commentary, and has worked for Fox Sports, NBC Sports Chicago and many others. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" as she has appeared on sports television dozens if not hundreds of times since 2006. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline says a sports commentator is not an entertainer? According to Wikipedia, entertainers can be "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities." I would say she is an opinion maker as she offers commentary. Regardless of how you define her position, I believe the article still passes WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am ready and willing to award ten extra points to anyone who can use WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GEOLAND use as a keep rationale for this person, who is clearly WP:JOURNALIST.104.163.158.37 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Held (web series)[edit]

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

Probably WP:TOOSOON. March 30, 2018 article at Calgary Herald says "She recently directed a trailer for a potential series based on Held". Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:28, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muthana al-Najjar[edit]

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

Failed the Google test. May or may not be notable.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:03, 3 April 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) @ 19:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non-notable individual killed during violent political protest.WP:NOTMEMORIALE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Non-notable individual garnered a flurry of coverage in run-up to recent Gaza protests, but coverage is so minor that, for example, although he self-describes as a "journalist" I cannot even locate a byline i a gNews search. This article in Middle East Eye (which is NOT a WP:RS, describes him as a "social media activist. Delete as mere PROMO for a non-notable social media activist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salty dog (cocktail)[edit]

Salty dog (cocktail) (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 notability. Wikipedia is not a cookbook and the cocktail's presence in recipe guides does not warrant its inclusion here. Reywas92Talk 19:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously notable. First of all, not sure I agree with the concept that inclusion in literally hundreds of recipe guides is not a designation of notability. To me, that's the essence of notability, since inclusion in the main source of information on a topic is, by definition, significant. Aside from that, articles in L.A. Weekly, Bloomberg, and several other nation-wide publications, indicate notability. Finally, the concept that "Wikipedia is not a cookbook", is irrelevant, since this is not a recipe, but simply a description. While the article needs to be fleshed out, deletion is not warranted. Onel5969 TT me 01:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable beverage. FITINDIA 09:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 15:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hot buttered rum[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hot buttered rum (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)

Prod removed without explanation. Previous afd 12 years ago ended with delete, then recreated. No evidence of notability; Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Reywas92Talk 19:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, the previous AfD ended with author requested speedy deletion because they transwikied the article to Wikibooks. The notability of the subject has never been tested at AfD. SpinningSpark 20:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick check indicates a significant amount on the drink, I would certainly consider Notable. Certainly equivalent to several within this list, if we are considering hot drinks. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A better question is deciding whether the article belongs as a subset of the Hot Toddy article, which does note that rum can be the base ingredient. As it is written in the two articles, that would make the hot buttered rum just a variant. However that just seems the base of a rather wide mix of separations over that American Food Roots Cocktails has a fairly common separation that actually rum isn't a hot toddy liquor - and so that is where the difference lies. If there is a reasonable consensus within the Hot Toddy article that rum counts, then this wouldn't seem sufficient separation - Airship, along with an array of others, feel the greater separation is the wider array of what goes in, like using ice cream or coconut milk as the butter/sweetener. An unhelpful splurge of a question I apologise - it isn't enough as is to change my mind - but if someone better up can clarify? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and undelete the previously deleted article. perhaps not the most notable subject we have on Wikipedia, but there is enough out there for at least a short article. This book, for instance, traces its history back many centuries. It also has a national day in the US [27][28] and seems to be a traditional holiday drink in the South. SpinningSpark 20:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:54, 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 keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Presidente (cocktail)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
El Presidente (cocktail) (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)

Previous afd ended in deletion, then recreated. No evidence of notability; Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Reywas92Talk 19:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, the previous AfD ended with author requested speedy deletion because they transwikied the article to Wikibooks. However, it was deleted there and the author of the original article then supported its recreation here. The notability of the subject has never been tested at AfD. SpinningSpark 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable beverage. FITINDIA 09:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yet again we have an AfD nomination of a food related article with the rationale "Wikipedia is not a recipe book" where the nominator seems to have completely failed to observe that there is actually no recipe in the article. That just translates to IDONTLIKEIT and should be ignored by the closer as an invalid argument. SpinningSpark 10:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What we've got now is a disaster of an article (the one reference currently points to a GoDaddy domain parking page). But, it didn't take long to find a number of good sources: [33], [34], [35], [36] which discuss the drink and its history in some detail (as opposed to the slew of useless hits that were nothing more than recipes). ¡Viva la Wikipedia! ¡Más ron para todos los editores! ¿Porque no hace WP:BEFORE? AfD no es limpia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian G. Walker[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman and political candidate. Routine election coverage which is not sufficient for non-successful candidates. Past AfD seems to have rested on OBE, which he does not appear to have and which is by consensus not sufficient to confer notability. Ralbegen (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this article cites no reliable sources at all, instead merely linkfarming a directory of primary source links to directly affiliated "references" like his own campaign website and the websites of organizations he was employed by, and it makes no claim of preexisting notability that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have reliable source coverage. I don't know where the OBE claim in the original discussion came from, because the article text doesn't state or source that Walker has an OBE, and didn't even state or source that at the time of the original discussion either — and even if it were actually verifiable at all, we still only accept the higher ranks (CBE and above) as a notability claim, not the lower MBE or OBE ranks. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected canddiates for parliament are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was created, and survived its previous AfD, in 2006. Its subject seems first to have been adopted as a candidate for a political post (South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner - though this is not mentioned in the article) in 2014. Being an unelected political candidate certainly does not make a non-notable person notable - but equally it does not make a notable person non-notable. We should be bearing in mind that if the subject was notable (by today's standards) before 2014, he is still notable. Having said that, the prior notability of the subject is definitely not obvious. A lack of inline citations was allowable even in BLPs in 2006, and the article does not appear to have been heavily edited in recent years - but that is no more than an argument to allow some limited time (a few days) for any interested editors to find and add reliable sources (preferably not local to Sheffield) that are now either archived or off-line. And even by the standards of 2006, the previous AfD does not look particularly safe - during the AfD, an IP editor introduced a whole load of unsubstantiated claims (including the already-mentioned OBE) which, taken together, look rather implausible and then largely seem to have been removed by another editor (whose editing patterns seem to have had some interesting correlations with those of the creator of the article) over a period of a few weeks following the closure of the AfD. None of this looks like a particularly solid case for deletion of the article - but it does not look like any kind of case for keeping it without decent proof of notability. PWilkinson (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Shankar[edit]

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

This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I redirected this article to Gultoo but the author reverted my edit twice. Fails WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:53, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamro[edit]

Tamro (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 sources at all, perhaps will create it as a new draft with clean sources. Newroderick895 18:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 1 primary ref, would redirect to its parent but that has useless refs too. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eldenle[edit]

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

Another spurious Somali town, with even fewer GHits than usual. There's just no "there" there: I find a ford of a intermittent river, and one building further off, and that is it. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faddhitehele[edit]

Faddhitehele (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)

Whatever this is, it's not a town in Somalia. The not particularly precise coords map to a spot WNW of Gawaan, which is surrounded on that side by what look to be a set of individual farms with single buildings, petering out around where the coords fall. Searching produces nothing beyond the usual clickbait sites. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 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. J04n(talk page) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Lakhanpal[edit]

Amit Lakhanpal (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)

CEO of a couple of non-notable entities [Money Trade Coin Group, Flint Global] and author of a non-notable book "The World of Crypto Currency".. the subject's entities/book has garnered some press coverage lately but none discusses the subject directly or in detail therefore the Subject does not appear to meet GNG.. Saqib (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete part of a way to large set of articles on non-notable businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MTC Group actually garnered significant coverage because a crypto exchange was a major deal in the UAE. There are more sources for Amit Lakhanpal that exist. I suppose I thought the ones I added were enough. I will add those as well. (I am the author of this article) Globe2trotter (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need to see in-depth and sig-coverage about the subject, not about the MTC Group. I expect you should provide a couple of links here which you believe can help establish the notability. --Saqib (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some more research on him. There are many more articles that focus on him. I have pasted some key interviews he did. I didn't use them since the credibility of interviews can be questioned but worth noting that these interviews were on major news channels (cnbc, abp etc). Regarding the articles on him, I think I will improve on the page by Monday and request you to review it then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtpW6Vt2VVU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaTXvZShBzU http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/dr-amit-lakhanpal-s-book-the-world-of-crypto-currency-to-divulge-money-trade-coin-secrets-117121800367_1.html Globe2trotter (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who put the COI tag for me but I have absolutely no connection with the subject in question. He gets featured in the press here in India as a socialite and is talked about because of the amount of jewellery he wears in his pictures (if you google his name,you will know what I mean). Other than that, I don't know him or any person connected to him. As I had promised a few days earlier, I have added more sources focused on Amit Lakhanpal. Everyone should review that as well. If the admin decides it's not enough,I'd be happy to learn more from this experience. Globe2trotter (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the references are low-quality, and "Money Trade Coin" appears to not be notable. The cryptocurrency press is filled with so much hype and self-promotion now that I don't see how an encyclopedic article can be written. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Whether to merge or redirect can be decided on the talk page. Or someone can just be bold and implement a suggestion from this discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Field, power, and root-power quantities[edit]

Field, power, and root-power quantities (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 stub has less info than the subsection "Root-power (aka field) quantities" (changed from "Field quantities and root-power quantities") in the Decibel article, and so I do not think it is necessary. Also, this article's name is confusing, making it sound like there are 3 different things. Per the Decibel article, there are just two types; one is just a deprecated name for the other. RobP (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the Decibel article: "The term root-power quantity is introduced by ISO Standard 80000-1:2009 as a substitute of field quantity. The term field quantity is deprecated by that standard." RobP (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an unresolved discussion about the nature of field quantities and root-power quantities. It would be unwise to delete the page on field and root-power quantities until we reach consensus on what they are. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a meta discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics#Power,_field,_root ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with this as an article topic, especially as it is an endless source of confusion even amongst practitioners in the field. There is also nothing wrong with the title. Even though one of the three terms is deprecated, it is useful for those readers who came to it through that term. SpinningSpark 15:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Kvng has this exactly right. It could end up remaining an article, or being merged into to another article and becoming a redirect. The unresolved discussion, IMO, is not a factor here: whatever the consensus on that, my Keep remains the same: all that might affect is the naming. —Quondum 16:21, 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 speedy delete per A7. MT TrainTalk 18:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan saxena[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chandan saxena (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)

Repeatedly created promotional article of non notable person. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:29, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam (Trick 'r Treat)[edit]

Sam (Trick 'r Treat) (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)

Fictional character in a one-off film, written primarily in-universe and not demonstrating any significant real-world context to demonstrate standalone notability. This is referenced not to reliable source analysis about the film or the character, but exclusively to the film itself and the filmmaker's own self-made and self-published behind-the-scenes "documentary" about his own process of making it. This is not the kind of content or sourcing that makes a film's central character independently notable enough to warrant his own standalone article, separately from already being discussed in the article about the film. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 2 primary refs, the character is already mentioned in the film article so I don't see the point of a merge or redirect. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchir Modi[edit]

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

So this BLP was deleted earlier this year via AfD but now has been re-created by a diff user.

I agree with what Edwardx (talk · contribs) said in the previous AfD: The subject has no significant or in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources so fails GNG.. and that he's getting trivial press coverage due to the companies owned by his father Lalit Modi so WP:NOTINHERITED. I would say salt if deleted. Saqib (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete and salt. We had an AfD in January. Hard to imagine that he is suddenly notable. Edwardx (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardx (talk · contribs) & Saqib There are people who are searching for the identity of this person on internet may be because of his father lalit modi or because of the controversies around in Rajasthan Cricket Board Association and there are numerous reputed newspapers who are citing the incidents. Wikipedia is here to cater to the knowledge base. I think this article may be of lesser significance but it can exist in the wikibase. Your comments are welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Er. Avinash Singh (talk • contribs)
striked out comments by CU blocked sockmaster. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can all do a search - if these articles really do meet WP:SIGCOV, why not add something to the article please. Edwardx (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(striked out comment added by Indianwikian, using Edwardx's signature. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are already numerous citations in that article but they aren't properly formatted so it's difficult to see what they are. I did a Google News search (linked above) and fpund plenty of other sources covering this subject and the aspects of his life I noted above. This subatantial coverage establishes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianwikian (talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]
@Indianwikian: copying comments verbatim from the previous discussion is meaningless for the purpose of this discussion (in addition to being dishonest - these are not your words but those of another editor!) --bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my.. @Usernamekiran: Thanks for fixing that. I thought that's Edwardx and was wondering why would he say that. I've filed a SPI on these newbies. --Saqib (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: yup, I already commented there :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 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 speedy delete per WP:A7. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan saxena[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:CREATIVE and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I thought I saw this deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why You Want it to be Deleted Saqib?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandanSaxena (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think this should be deleted from wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashi Yadav (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Vibez Music[edit]

Tree Vibez Music (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)

Blatant advertising Rathfelder (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon opening, the page just looks like something you would find on the ABOUT US tab in their official website. Strong WP:PROMO content in page, and zero citations which breaks WP:V guidelines. It has the potential to be a proper page in the future, since the company is founded by notable artist Florida Georgia Line which ensures some coverage from other websites, but a complete rewrite would be needed thus a page deletion and recreation would be helpful. aNode (discuss) 12:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:18, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaqurun[edit]

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

Another Somali supposed town sourced only to a UN OCHA document which is no longer accessible. Trying all variants of the name produces nothing of substance and no geonames hits except for some not-very-close names, none of which are towns anyway. Mangoe (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This looks suspiciously like a hoax to me. I can't find any mention of it anywhere on the internet, barring mirror Wikipedia sites. I've tried searching UN documents - again, no luck. It beggars belief that there are no accessible references anywhere to it. At the very best, this article should be deleted anyway due to lacking any form of notability whatsoever. However, a hoax appears to be much more likely. In either case, deletion is the appropriate response.FirefoxLSD (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Using ProQuest I identified a reliable source confirming the existence of this town: a BBC article from July 16, 2002, entitled "Somalia: Four people said killed in clan fighting in central region". It states that "Reports from Mudug Region [in central Somalia] say that two rival clans have clashed at Sahaqurun, west of Gaalkacyo [Galcaio] town", proving that this article is not a hoax insofar as it is about a real place. Not sure about some of the other stuff in the article now, or whether this source establishes notability for this topic. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That quote doesn't confirm the existence of the town. At best it confirms that Sahaqurun is a place in Somalia, it doesn't say it's a town. It could be some other kind of place instead. Hut 8.5 17:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we can't have an article on a town without at least one reliable source confirming that it is in fact a town per WP:V. Per WP:NGEO if it isn't a town (or a few other narrowly defined categories) then we need significant coverage to establish notability. We don't have either. Hut 8.5 17:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ops and Tactics[edit]

Ops and Tactics (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)

While the article is (now) very long, none of the information can in fact be verified using reliable sources. PROD was removed by the IP adding the text. It's clear that a lot of work has gone into the article and the product itself but all my tries to find even a single reliable source failed. As such, the subject fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. Regards SoWhy 10:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 10:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability. No reliable, independent external sources. It's extremely niche. As SoWhy said, lots of effort has been put into the article, but it just lacks notability I'm afraid.FirefoxLSD (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what little is left of this. Not much left. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under G4 (see Arishfa Khan) and G5. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arishfa khan (actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arishfa khan (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)

Actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORS.. apparently Arishfa khan acted in a couple of Indian soaps with no major roles.. no significant coverage in independent RS either. Wikipedia:NotJustYet. Saqib (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was deleted and recreated and may have to be salted. Article about non notable minor with few minor kid roles. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay found it Arishfa khan pathan and perhaps can be speedy closed now. --Saqib (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...

The page has everything perfect, references trusted sources like Indian Express... This page is a long way from perfect. Notability is questionable, issues about your own possible conflict of interest are unresolved and the article has not a single in-line citation. How about improving it rather than indulging in self praise ? I will improve it, thank you very very much for the advice.

  • Contested deletion:

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) -- The page was queued for speedy deletion before even me, the author of this page, added content to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preet Dave (talk • contribs) 09:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See closed AfD discussion here. Cesdeva (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as recreation of deleted material via AfD. Also note to the closing Admin. This has been recreated while this discussion is ongoing at two titles Arishfa Khan and at Arishfa Khan (disambiguation). It will be useful to salt all this title variants as it is clear it will be likely recreated. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:34, 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 Professional wrestling in New Zealand#WWE shows held in New Zealand. Sandstein 16:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE SmackDown Road to WrestleMania 22 Tour[edit]

WWE SmackDown Road to WrestleMania 22 Tour (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 nominate this for deletion since it covers a tour that wasn't shown live all over the world, not released on PPV and DVD, and it was shown on WWE 24/7. I'm surprised about its existence. Nickag989talk 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989talk 09:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs a reason to exist. If there was sourcing regarding it being a prevalent reason for New Zealand wrestling, or such, it wouldn't be too bad. seems like a normal episode of Smackdown to me, which aren't on Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:14, 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 keep. Not a very strong consensus, but I can think that I can safely say that considering a book to be a case of BLP1E is quite unorthodox. We regularly consider authors of a notable book to be notable themselves by virtue of WP:AUTHOR, so the question is whether the book has enough coverage - and the balance of the discussion seems to be that it has. Sandstein 16:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Ng[edit]

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

So author of only 1 book "Under the Pendulum Sun".. fails WP:AUTHOR.. perhaps WP:NotJustYet.. Saqib (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her book Under the Pendulum Sun has been reviewed by many sources and was included on a list of "The best science fiction and fantasy of 2017" by The Guardian[40] and was also named one of the "10 Best Sci-Fi and Fantasy Books of 2017" by SYFY.[41] The author is also currently a finalist for the 2018 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer and has been shortlisted for other awards. I believe they pass WP:AUTHOR because their work "has won significant critical attention." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the book is notable and may warrant an article but not the author. Apparently she has received coverage and attention due to this one book so I think WP:BLP1E applies here. --Saqib (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E is specifically about "Subjects notable only for one event." In this article, the sources cover the contents of the book, not the event of it being published or some other particular date. Additionally, WP:BLP1E only applies "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." In this case, the individual's role was substantial and well-documented (she is the author), and although I don't think a book is an event, if it is considered an event, I would say it's significant due to all the coverage. Lastly, WP:AUTHOR specifically states an author may be notable if the "person's work (or works)" "has won significant critical attention." This author's work has received that. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this doesn't seem to me to be a correct application of WP:BLP1E. Looking at the three criteria for that policy (all of which should apply), I'm not sure any of them do. (1) Do the reliable sources only mention Ng in the context of a single 'event'? No - while that is the great majority of the coverage, the Bookseller report on Not So Stories, including a quote from Ng, relates to an entirely separate work and does not mention Under the Pendulum Sun. (2) Does she remain and is likely to remain a low profile individual? No - she has claims to notability as an individual as well as for the book (e.g. the John W Campbell award is for an author, not a work) and it can reasonably be expected that she will have future publications. (3) Is her involvement not substantial or not well-documented? No - her involvement as author is clearly fundamental to the 'event' (book). It's possible that she will be judged non-notable for other reasons, but WP:BLP1E would seem to me the wrong basis to use. TSP (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think with so many speculative fiction books being published, to get any sort of mention is important, particularly when the review has been written as strange, brooding and occasionally perverse debut by Adam Roberts of the Guardian, on 30 Nov 2017. It the book is notable, the author not yet. Possibly WP:TOOSOON for her, although it is tremendous effort of creative will to write a book, and in my opinion, if the book is worth reading, the author is worth an article, although it is not WP's rule.scope_creep (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Ng's book is notable so we could have a standalone article for it with a redirect from author that can be developed into an article when she has done more. (ps. i know WP:AUTHOR allows for one significant/well known work (point no. 3) but this is really for the Harper Lees of this world).Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: In 2 weeks a few days' time (Amazon says 19 Apr but Goodreads and other booksellers say 10 April) she'll be the author of one of the stories in a published anthology (already in Worldcat and reviewed at Goodreads) - can we wait and see if it gets substantial reviews? And the nomination for John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer is not just for the one novel but "the best new writer whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy was published within the two previous calendar years": "the Campbell Award is not given explicitly for any particular work". Though nominations aren't notability, and there's no indication when the winner will be announced. PamD 12:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Updated re publication date: PamD 12:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CREATIVE; it may well merely be WP:TOOSOON for this author of one book that lacks reviews or WP:SIGCOV. Nominaitons for a genre award and inclusion of a story in a published collection of short stories do not notability confer. Fan enthusiasm is great, but the kind of sourcing we need to see is just not out there at this time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You think the whole article should be deleted, not even renamed to be about the book? Lonehexagon (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. a single "Ten Best" listing in a category list does not carry an AUTHOR past WP:AUTHOR. You could (WP:HEYMANN) change my mind by pointing me to the book reviews you mention, but the review has to be in a significant publication. Note that reviews in Publisher's Weekly do not contribute to notability since Pub. Weekly runs a review of every book flagged as significant by a publisher. Ping me if you can persuade me with solid sources. I am always willing to change an iVote when presented with solid sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine: Figure Skater[edit]

Imagine: Figure Skater (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 doesn't pass WP:GNG. None of the Imagine games are notable in themselves. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlike the other article Lee nom'd, there's only the IGN review that I've found for this one ([42]) with absolutely nothing else popping up for me in the normal searches. One review ain't enough for an article. Nomader (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete/redirect; the deletion of this article already had consensus from this discussion, not sure why we'd need another. Lordtobi (✉) 07:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Il Chyun Kwak[edit]

Il Chyun Kwak (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 academic administrator Uhooep (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed mohsen rowhani[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN, WP:JOURNALIST or even basis GNG... Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but Google search yields nothing for this. Saqib (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it appears from the references he's an employee of Tehran city council in a cultural ambassador type role, notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dudas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. The previous AfD noted the same issue, and this hasn't changed. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He meets Criterion 6 having played in the 2016 World Championships for Hungary in the highest pool. --SP17 (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - SP17 seems to be correct. [43] Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY #6 per above. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close I totally missed that World Championship appearance, which most definitely confirms notability. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:29, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomless Bowls Study[edit]

Bottomless Bowls Study (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)

Industrial waste dumped into WP - this is what an academic lab marketing itself looks like. Not to mention that this makes claims about health and there is not a MEDRS ref in sight. Lots of hard selling about how great the lab is tho.

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Academic_promotion_from_Cornell_Food_and_Brand_Lab. And please do see the article about the head of the lab, Brian Wansink and how it came out in the last year that the lab p hacked their data and then framed the titles and bits of the abstract so they would be media circus ready. And had six papers retracted and 14 corrections when the scholarly community caught wind of it. This page and several others are blatant abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may have actually made a case for keep here: if this study, which was widely cited across popular media and is frequently used as a diet "factoid" is in fact an egregious incident of academic fraud, then it's much more notable than simply being one of many psychological studies that have received media coverage. Please put information about this shady behavior into the article itself. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I am deeply troubled by the allegations arising about this body of work, this particular study -- whether accurate or not -- has been widely covered in popular media eg [44], diet books eg [45], as well as academic sources eg [46] and several sources available via JSTOR [47]. The original publisher Wiley claims it has 250 citations, Google Scholar gives it 574. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this study is discussed a bit at Brian_Wansink#Ig_Nobel_Prize, and I have added the guardian ref there. This page does not need to exist. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bottomless_Soup_Bowl_Study previously closed as delete. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Guardian article confirms the data results are suspect. scope_creep (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and propose deletion of the Wansink as a human. Natureium (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brian Wansink. I don't have a preference for whether it is deleted first and then redirected or just redirected. I think the study got enough media coverage to be a plausible search term and the topic is mentioned in the Wansink article, so we should definitely redirect our readers there. Peacock (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the experiment has become widely known, and in this November 2016 Atlantic article, is used by a researcher as a way to describe social media addiction.[[48]]. Coupled with the NY Times coverage already in the article, we have multiple reputable sources calling the study famous, including Vox,[[49]] The New Yorker[[50]] and the Chronicle of Higher Education[[51]]. While Wansink is facing scrutiny into some of his results, as far as I can see, this one isn't among his studies that were questioned and/or retracted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is pure abuse of WP. That is all it is. It already has all the WEIGHT WP needs to give it, in the Wansink article. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was almost with you on the redirect and merge, but that was before I found the other sources I listed that mention the experiment. The brief Atlantic mention doesn't even include Wansink, from which you can infer that the experiment is as well known as he is. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People referring to this experiment in the media is the result of Wansinks's saavy self-promotion. Whatever, a sucker is born every minute. your stance here is way out of step with the developing consensus in any case. This industrial waste dumped into WP is not going to stay. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However the coverage was generated, the fact that it exists demonstrates notability, meeting WP:GNG. I don't think a keep vote is way out of step with consensus - after all, I'm the second keep, one delete appears to be based on a faulty premise (that this study is tainted), the other deletes seem to touch on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, while the redirect acknowledges the quantity of search results, and as such could be qualified as a weak keep. To answer the question below, I think the closer read Audiovideodiscoo's comment and decided to get more feedback. I'm glad they did. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies and guidelines are not a suicide pact. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was this relisted when all but one person voted to delete? Natureium (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
got me. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A clear case. In addition to the NYT article already used as a source, there's a lot of discussion of this in books. Just e.g. [52], [53], [54], [55], and so on. If the results of the study are suspect, so what? There should be sources on that and it should be discussed in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What it means is if the study is suspect, then it's potentially false, meaning it is fraud NOT a study, meaning he is not a scientist, he is a frauster and wouldn't qualify him for an article in Wikipedia, and potentially calls into questions all his other research, that also have articles on Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just something you made up. Plenty of frauds are notable enough for a WP article. Why don't you bring Piltdown Man to AfD if your theories about deletion are correct, or anything else in Category:Hoaxes in science? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging this up, except a careful reading reveals that this article doesn't mention the bowl experiment. It does further support his notability, as painful as that is for some as it likely also is with Uri Geller. If this experiment is eventually discredited, I'd support a merge and redirect. Right now we're not there yet. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation seems to be in progress at the moment. I suggest that even though the article doesn't mention the bowls experiment it doesn't preclude it, and it is likely the case that if the scientist did falsify one experiment, it is probable that he falsified them all to some extent. What is the phrase about being famous being the best narcotic. And the bowl experiment was one of the earliest. The The Wansink Dossier: An Overview seems to suggest that notability is not clear cut, and what notability there is, as value, is based on past work, so when that work is called into question, so is the reason for his being famous. Six papers of his have had to be retracted: Retraction Watch Database. The more I look at it, I more I think it is not worth an article. scope_creep (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it was the Coin team that surfaced these Dossiers. scope_creep (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's a lot of smoke and it sure looks suspicious, but until it's definitively proven, it's WP:OR. And even then, with the media coverage, it's notable, if just for being fraudulent and fooling people. It's a Catch-22. I think you'll have a harder time AfDing his article for this reason, but you can always give it a shot. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 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 keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Garcia[edit]

Ryan Garcia (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 boxer does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. There's a lack of significant independent coverage, junior boxing titles fail to show notability, and notability is not achieved by having a famous promoter. I think it's quite possible he becomes a notable boxer, but right now it appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's debatable whether or not he meets WP:GNG, but he does meet WP:NBOX as it is currently written. It was my error to not keep up with the changes in the criteria, especially the one that changed the ranking criteria from top 10 to top 15. Papaursa (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Up and coming and on the rise rapidly; very unique for his age. Very popular amongst the Latino community, the Mexican community in particular. This isn't like any other teen boxer out there. Quickly on his way to fame due to his spotless record. CloudKade11 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Up and coming" is another way of saying "not yet notable", as is "on his way to fame". Popularity is not a WP notability criteria. I'm willing to change my vote is someone can show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe he passes WP:NBOX, but the existence of some sources [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] make an arguable claim he meets WP:GNG (though he did fight on ESPN, which may discredit that source). I personally have no comment on the matter, but if WP:GNG isn't met, draftify is better than delete. SportingFlyer talk 02:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources seem like significant, independent coverage of him. Most are routine sports reporting and one is an interview with his father/trainer. I see nothing there to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the LA Times had a good article, and the notability of ESPN was also good; also the fact a boxing blog wants his opinion on the upcoming fight was a good showing of potential notability. I think it's closer to being met than not. SportingFlyer talk 02:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good feature article: [61] SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Currently ranked 11 by the WBO and 15 by the WBA and therefore eligible to fight for two world titles. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:11, 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. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken McKay[edit]

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

The article does not credibly state the importance of the person. Never held elected office. Seems to have helped a PAC raised $20 million for Trump, but that doesn't mean WP:N. Speculated candidate for federal judge position WP:TOOSOON / WP:Crystal. Delete or move to draft. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 11:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: while this article is a stub, it already has multiple reliable sources which establish notability under WP:BASIC. TOOSOON is an essay. BASIC is a guideline. – Lionel(talk) 11:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, hometown-only sources such as those currently cited don't satisfy WP:BASIC for anyone, and don't help at all when the notability claim rests on being an unelected candidate for office (see, recently, the Marie Newman AfD, which had not only national but also international coverage and was still redirected). Rather, I wonder whether this should be deleted under WP:BIO1E, as much of the national coverage on him I can find deals with the 2010 RNC lesbian bondage club scandal and his eventual resignation over it (see Fox, NBC, The Atlantic, Washington Post, etc.) I also see a few mentions of his hire by Trump in 2016 (e.g. Politico). Question to me is, does that add up to significant coverage and satisfy WP:WHYN, or does it basically exemplify the dangers of a pseudobio? (Reminds me of the Julio Cabral-Corrada AfD, which also raised issues whether accepting thin sourcing would put undue weight on a single unflattering event, in absence of sufficient material to give a full account--whether that turned out to be flattering or unflattering.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC does not distinguish between "hometown" sources and mainstream media. In fact, none of our policies differentiate between local and national. Published is published. In fact Note 4 says: "What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad." I don't know if you realize this, but the quantity of sources you have identified certainly satisfy Bullet 1 of WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined." (Ital mine) – Lionel(talk) 05:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the BIO1E restrictions, I’m not sure they do suffice in combination. But I haven’t decided yet; that’s why I haven’t ivoted. But I do think you’ll find that hometown sources are regularly refused at AFD. I notice you have only recently become active on WP again after a long absence since 2012; most folks who’ve been around through that period can tell you notability standards have become considerably more strictly applied (I’m now considered more “inclusionist” than many because I think hometown or “local” sources should count in some purposes. See for instance this discussion.) Innisfree987 (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This source would be a good non-local addition to the article and might help to expand its content somewhat. However, I am not sure if that is enough to ease the concerns others have expressed here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is not more to say about a person than "Ken McKay is a political consultant who is currently an executive with Rebuilding America Now. He is the leading candidate for a judgeship on the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island", then there's probably not much out there in terms of reliable sources. Sandstein 17:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope that "hometown" sources are afforded much less weight than national or major regional sources when evaluating notability. Most local newspapers will simply publish any story about a local person that they are given on a plate - usually by the person involved or someone close to them. If coverage in a local newspaper was the standard then I, my wife, my parents, my mother-in-law and my children would all be more notable than McKay, but in fact none of us come anywhere near being people that even a very inclusive encyclopedia should cover. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you propose we set a cutoff between "hometown" and large city sources? Circulation? Population of the city? How does this cutoff apply to books? What about periodicals which have ceased publication? And what about webnews sites that have no circulation and physical location is not tied to readership? Like foxnews.com. What about scholarly journals which are only read by academics? No, we do not discriminate against sources because of arbitrary criteria. If a source is reliable then it's a reliable source. – Lionel(talk) 02:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW keep, article appears to be notable. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln (1924 film)[edit]

Abraham Lincoln (1924 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an obscure film made in an obscure sound film process. Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Take a look at the Crafton source cited in the article: [62]. Not only is this an extended discussion of this film, but that source cites a bunch of newspaper sources discussing the film and, more importantly, the new sound process embodied in it. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is one good ref and a couple of weaker ones, sufficient. Szzuk (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A brief article on a lost film, but its coverage in multiple books (Crafton, Reinhart) demonstrates WP:NFILM notability. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Added references to the article, which can be found here [63]. Believe it meets notability requirements. ShoesssS Talk 14:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qadir Bux Mitho[edit]

Qadir Bux Mitho (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)

Quasi-promo-spam.No non-trivial coverage, other than mere name mentions, among a list of participants, in reliable sources.~ Winged BladesGodric 05:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could only locate mention-in-passing in Pakistani newspapers which I believe is not enough to establish WP:N. apparently no significant coverage in RS which discusses the subject directly and in detail. --Saqib (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References from the reliable sources are mentioned. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you run some sort of bot, which generates a strong keep or keep or delete !vote, based on the cardinality of the set of references existent in the article and on the number of G-Hits, retrieved by the subject, before you get topic-banned?!~ Winged BladesGodric 06:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • How could you justify your such comments 'to run a bot which generates vote'?, and what are proofs of allegations for which you saying topic ban. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 07:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable.  samee  converse  03:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allah Dino Khawaja[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Allah Dino Khawaja (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 fail to see how he passes our standard notability guidelines for biographies or general notability guidelines.Trivial mentions in sources and it may be noted, that such new appointments ought to generate news and sprinkling of trivial-name-mentions can be found across RS, courtesy the position held, on matters of regular law and order.But, that does not make one encyclopedic-ally notable.Also, promotionally toned.Unclear opinion on significance of position held. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's pretty obvious that the chief of police in a province with a population of over 47 million is a significant position, and notability is confirmed by the hundreds of sources found by the Google News search linked by the nomination statement. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citation are from reliable souces, and notable and incumbet Police officer. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He is Inspector-general_of_police#Pakistan in Pakistan's second largest province by population. He is better known as AD Khawaja. He is covered in all major news paper because of his appointment. Read this coverage [64], [65], [66], [67], and in international newspaper also covered him [68].--Spasage (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better known as AD Khawaja in the Pakistani news media (on TV and newspaper news coverage). This article already has 7 references including 3 major newspapers of Pakistan. Certainly holds a very notable public service position with plenty of news coverage. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly holds a very notable public service position with plenty of news coverage. (Regent007 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. stuff made up by the editor with no sources or notabillity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political tourism[edit]

Political tourism (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)

Wikipedia don't host and publicize random new ideas. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:16, 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 keep. There is no consensus to delete, the merge proposal and discussion of its target can continue on the talk page if so desired. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brasstown Creek[edit]

The article most definitely doesn't meet the notability guideline also known as WP:GNG. Citybuild122 (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per WP:NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." This valid stub at Brasstown Creek, officially recognized as a landform by GNIS, has reliable sources for location, as well as name origin.– Gilliam (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to cite a couple of things to remember. WP:EXISTENCE: "Just because a subject exists in this world does not mean it is automatically notable." Just because a creek exists in the world, doesn't mean I will make a wikipedia page about it. Should I go make a wikipedia page about the oak tree in my yard? Taking what you said from your own mouth, Gilliam. "Named natural features are often notable..." That is true. They are often notable. However, this just honestly isn't. That refers me back to the WP:EXISTENCE quote. Per the WP:GNG as well, the article has no news articles or any significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citybuild122 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Geographical features are notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like you to consider something different. I believe a merge with Brasstown, North Carolina is appropriate. According to the notability guideline on geographic features under named natural places, it says it is often notable. Not always notable like you have said. Here is a quote from it: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." In this case, it is true. The author was only able to come up with three sentences, one of which is contains a claim that can't be supported. Therefore, I will refer you here: Low sentence articles Citybuild122 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with Citybuild122's proposal. The information level is very questionable and certainly a strong case can be made for it not falling into the "often" mentioned in WP:NGEO. That said, clearly geographical features are an area that consensus has a strong view in preserving information so long as minimal standards can be met. Merging it with the (itself very minimal) Brasstown, Georgia Brasstown, North Carolina stub would be a good solution in my view. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if I didn't formally state it. Citybuild122 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This body of water is in at least three counties in two states. There are at least two different suggestions for merger above, even though the people making them seem to think they are agreeing, but they have picked different states. I'm not sure there is an appropriate merge target; I think it would only muddy the waters, so to speak. LadyofShalott 02:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I say Brasstown, North Carolina. Seeing as that is where the creek actually starts. Citybuild122 (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - My fault on that, sorry, just tagged the wrong one. I agree with North Carolina as a merge target
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. A search for sources is a bit confusing since there are two Brasstown Creeks and the other one has a few waterfalls. I do not support a merge. SportingFlyer talk 20:48, 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 delete. Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afaratu[edit]

Afaratu (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)

What's the point of listing a name when there are no Wikipedia notable people for entries, no places or organizations with the name? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The corresponding article in Indonesian Wiki (id:Afaratu) has a very similar description. It includes a list of 28 people with the surname. Some but not all are supported by evidence of existence, but none by assertion of notability. It looks like a family blog. I would challenge inclusion of that list in English Wiki under WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
There is precisely one article in Indonesian Wiki about someone with the surname: id:Lucky Afaratu. It looks like an autobiography, and I very much doubt that it would pass English WP:NBIO. It came as no surprise to find that the principal editor on that article is the same as on the English, Indonesian and Dutch articles about the surname.
Of the two sources in the English article, one is a list of people with the name and the other is a blog. Neither is WP:RS. There is nothing better in the Dutch and Indonesian articles.
If there are no notable people or organisations with the name, I do not see how the surname can be notable. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Simply a definition. If this were to be the standard, we'd have literally hundreds of thousands of articles, each about every last name in existence. Delete as per WP:ISNOT. Onel5969 TT me 10:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Afaratu in Indonesian Wiki article id:Fam Maluku , These are little links that prove that Afaratu is very famous

1. Afaratu invites citizen to use coins in a coin-cared campaign with Bank Indonesia of Maluku (http://indonesiabangkit.net/ajak-warga-pakai-uang-logam-bi-perwakilan-maluku-kampanye-peduli-koin/) 2. Chairman of Maluku Protestant Church (GPM) Tionghowa Ethnic Profession in Saumlaki, Joseph Afaratu, stated that this service of thanksgiving is part of the ministry to strengthen togetherness among ethnic Chinese communities in Saumlaki City and West Southeast Maluku Regency in general (https://www.lelemuku.com/2017/09/warga-gpm-tionghoa-di-saumlaki-gelar.html) 3. Alfa Gilberd Afa Ratu from Wai Rejected management (http://pontianak.tribunnews.com/2017/07/29/tahun-ini-wai-rejected-bakal-launching-album-perdana-mereka) 202.62.16.158 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just random folks with the same family name. There's no indication they are related or any news articles that describe the collective family as notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I specifically addressed the issue of Indonesian Wiki in my !vote.
id:Fam Maluku does nothing more than link to id:Afaratu. Wiki is not WP:RS. That link is no evidence of anything (except perhaps for my suspicion that (1) User:ShareMan 15, principal editor on this article, and on the two other-language surname articles, and on id:Lucky Afaratu, and (2) User:202.62.16.158, and (3) a couple of other IP editors in the 202.62 range, may be one and the same). WP:COI could be an issue here. Narky Blert (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I always WP:AGF, but somehow or other these contributions made me think of a knitted tubular garment, open at one end, designed for enclosing the lower end of one's leg. Narky Blert (talk) 20:58, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Semiotics[edit]

Interior Semiotics (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'm not seeing enough substantial coverage of this outside of superficial jokes about hipsters. This isn't notable as art but was a blip-on-the-radar meme. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any enduring historical significance. On 24 August 2016 Snopes debunked the claim that an edited version of the video showed a young woman seemingly struggling with the feat of opening a can of Spaghetti-O’s. Their report was Updated on 24 January 2018 and that is, I hope, the last we will ever hear of it. Vexations (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't any artistic notability that is getting it in - references come from people making fun of hipsters, and I can't imagine that it some notability criteria for a particularly significant case of mocking hipsters. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A couple more decent refs and it would have been a different story, he said while struggling to open his can of Spaghetti-o's.104.163.158.37 (talk) 03:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lanesville Heritage Weekend[edit]

Lanesville Heritage Weekend (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, seems to be some type of a fair held in a small town of about 500 people. Only coverage is from the local newspaper.WP:AUD may be an issue here. Rusf10 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom appears to have misunderstood the scale of this Festival, which draws 70,000 visitors every year over four days to see antique farm machinery and old-time farm techniques. I have asked Nom at previous AfDs whether he has access to a news archive because they are ueful in considering notablity for stuff like a festival that has been around since 1976. The Courier-Journal, a large,regional daily has run reported, INDEPTH over the decades, some, Lanesville celebrates Indiana farming heritage, available in a gNews search. I did a small expand,/source. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changes by E.M.Gregory have added enough background to show notability. GeorgeofOrange (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is littered with all sorts of mid-scale cultural events; certainly this one with over 70,000 attendees is worthy of the server space it occupies. XavierItzm (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qosoltire[edit]

Qosoltire (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 wadi, not a town; we have not in general considered wadis notable simply because they have a name. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:26, 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 keep. AfD is not meant for cleanup, and while issues with the article have been demonstrated, there is certainly no consensus that said issues are serious enough to require deleting this and starting from scratch. Further discussion on addressing content issues is best kept to the talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian persecution complex[edit]

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

I don't think this is really a recognised phenomenon, and the whole article seems to be WP:Synthesis from beginning to end. PepperBeast (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's probably a notable topic here, but it's not clear that it should be "Christian persecution complex". That term, which includes the psychological term persecution complex seems fairly specific. There are also a lot of sources, however, on the "War on Christians" (parent topic of the War on Christmas?) and/or "Christian persecution" (in the sense meant by this article) is a myth. I see a lot of sources with inconsistent terminology, and not as many scholarly sources as I'd want to see -- especially to use a term like "persecution complex". It's also not clear that this couldn't be covered under persecution of Christians, although it would obviously be kind of out of place there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that some Christians unreasonably believe that they are somehow persecuted. The imagined War on Christmas is a prime example. But it's not the mental health condition that this article sets it up to be, and treating it as such is far, far from encyclopedic. The terminology is inappropriate, as is the anti-Christian tone. The subject should probably be covered in Christian privilege and maybe persecution of Christians. PepperBeast (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe term is not Synthesis. Even if it was Synthesis, it wouldn't qualify for deletion as per WP:Deletion policy. No reason is cited for being Synthesis. There is nowhere combined material so as to reach conclusions. The term is not original research as reliable, published sources exist. It’s being used in Academia by university professors and other scholars. Prof Castelli Elizabeth wrote extensively on the subject. [69], [70]. At the article's page, one can find more published reliable sources. Of course it is not a mental condition, as it has been argued in the talk page of the article, but that is a subject we should discuss at the talk page. The term war on Christmas has a different narrative. It describes a modern debate whereas the Christian Persecution Complex describes a notion among many conservative Christians. Conserning the argument of the article being moved somewhere else, that condradicts the "syntesis claim" because if it is synthesis in this article, it would still be sythesis in another article. Nevertheless, it is not synthesis. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ps-I apologize for the delayed respond, but I was not informed of the proposal. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, its a neologism. Szzuk (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term Persecution complex describes a psychiatric condition so the article is called "Christians with a mental problem", refs or not I can't see widespread acceptance of this term. Szzuk (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term has been around, at least since the 00' so is not a neologism. Even if it was, that wouldn't qualify for deletion. There is no connection to any Phychiatric condition. That is crystal clear on the refs, it is crystal clear at the text of the article. Maybe a clarification template would solve the issue. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few terms describing social phenomena have "decided meaning(s)", for that matter, "Christianity" is a term with fuzzy borders. More to the point, the article is well-sourced and while it stands in need of improvement, does not seem to me to be an WP:ESSAY or OR. However, your are certainly correct to point out, as you do at talk, that this is an entirely separate thing from the actual persecution of Christians in the Muslim world, in China, and elsewhere. I am hoping that you have a suggestion for a better name. Perhaps there is another term being used for this phenomenon? E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought these sources to show that the concept of a "persecution complex" among contemporary Christians is not SYNTH, they all came up on a quick gNews search of: "persecution complex" Christian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clarify There are a variety of sources pointing to "this" and even some of the resultant behavior, attitudes and beliefs of one who "has this." We just need to rewrite the intro or create a subsection acknowledging that "this" is a very real phenomena, people are talking about "this" and that "Christian Persecution Complex" is not so much a technical name as what some have called it. (I have begun to work on that btw) Beautiful article on a fascinating subject BTW. Sethie (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: topic has in depth coverage in multiple sources thus passes WP:GNG .– Lionel(talk) 05:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Luu[edit]

Cindy Luu (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)

Unnotable illustrator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:41, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Serbian Doctrine[edit]

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

This is an unsalvageable, barely comprehensible Albanian nationalist coatrack that is rife with original research and POV issues. 23 editor (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nominator. I can´t find a single mention of this alleged "The Holy Serbian Doctrine" in any source that not the Albanian Wikipedia article. FkpCascais (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some kind of Albanian conspiracy theory that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. PepperBeast (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Userfy also perhaps possible) - per WP:TNT in this case. Poor translation (e.g. This idea later began to be institutionalized in Serbian shaved circles and become their essential preoccupation in the lede). Sourcing of article far below par for such a highly contentious subject - I would expect us to rely on an academic history text books, or journal articles, preferably in English, for the main points here - which is not the case here. POV problems. There might be an article to be had on this subject - but not in this form.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all - there is no mention of the Doctrine itself in the literature and the reason is because it doesn't exist as described in the article (doctrine from 1885 to today). This is a clear example of a hoax. The article itself is full of open insults towards institutions such as Serbian Orthodox Church and Republic of Serbia (in the article "Serbian state") and also against the Serbs. The examples are calling the Serbian state today as criminal and ethnocide state, undemocratic (Quote: Pos Naçertanies, from whose source are the plans and programs for the extermination of Albanians, which are still guided today, and until it draws out drawers and publishes these plans, Serbia will never be democratized.) etc. After check, some of the sources don't match with the claimed - failed verifiability, which are tagged now. The article is in majority unreferenced with the part which seems to represent personal opinions of the author (if it was translated from Albanian wikipedia, from the author from that wikia - but author on this wikia who translated it didn't removed that). Also, majority of the claims are false as they don't match and contradict mains sources and literature about the topic. For example, Načertanije in the article. Nacertanije was influenced by a document written by Polish Prince Adam Czartoryski in 1843 and the revised version by Polish ambassador to Serbia, Franjo Zach, "Zach's Plan"[1][2] (for more details see the page) - In the article there are unreferenced claims that it was influenced by some, again alleged, Russian programs (not cited which nor explained) and some alleged Serbian Orthodox Doctrine which is incorrect, if you compare the reasons from literature about the topic. Also, not to mention the programs which didn't existed or which are left unexplained such as some Ivo Andric's programs, alleged concentration camps etc. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax. No credibility. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like everyone else, I can find no usage of the term anywhere except Wikipedia and mirror sites. Neiltonks (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be entirely fair to the creator, there is actually a useful topic in differentiating Serbian nationalism from "ethnic puricist" ideology that arose in certain periods (1870s, 1940s, 1990s), as despite common Western terming of such ideology as "Serbian nationalism", one can be a Serbian natlist and not adhere to that. However, this page is a mess and is nowhere close to wiki standards, to say the least. --Calthinus (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, xenophobic pamphlet, hoax about an Albanian-POV conspiracy theory.--Zoupan 22:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY; WP is NOT a venue for racist propaganda.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious hoax (as in the pamphlet described in the article doesn't actually exist) and very offensive and racist propaganda that potrays the Serbians as monsters to the Albanians. No references for it exist outside of the original Albanian Wikipedia version of this article. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources in the article, and GB has nothing relating to it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 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.
  1. ^ Anzulovic 1999, p. 91
  2. ^ Trencsényi, Balázs (2006). Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770–1945), Texts and Commentaries, Volume I. Central European University Press. p. 240. ISBN 963-7326-60-X.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_3&oldid=1142617149"