Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cornerstonepicker (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 3 April 2018 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hennessy Carolina. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 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 no consensus defaulting to keep. Fairly even split between those who believe she has her own notability and those who think WP:NOTINHERITED applies, with similar debate about several sources. Merge discussion can be held on talk page if desired, though it'd probably end up with a similarly even split. ansh666 04:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hennessy Carolina

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

Aside from IG followers and walking the red carpet with her sister, no notability. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too thought of AfD'd this one but Google search does not yield anything solid for me so I requested speedy deletion which was declined by Ritchie333, however but no offense. The subject is famous due to her sister so Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited applies here. --Saqib (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or (second choice) Redirect to Cardi B where she is already mentioned. It's definitely not a delete (see WP:INVALIDBIO : "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A ... However, person A may be included in the related article on B.") which implies it sure isn't a speedy. The sources I get when I hit the "news" link all appear to be female-oriented with an emphasis on fashion and gossip, but that doesn't make them unreliable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on above reasoning by Ritchie333, I would go with merge thus striking my delete. --Saqib (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think human penis size (or at least 3,000 words of it) has no real place on an encyclopedia, but your mileage may vary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Open an AfD for it if you think so. You should just avoid comparisons that don't even make sense, we're talking about a person who's solely known thanks to her sister and whose article exclusively reports her personal life. GNG is an overused excuse to write articles about encyclopedically irrelevant subjects like this one we're discussing. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 23:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a feckin' load. Fascinating to see your views on perhaps the most well-established policy as something which is "an excuse". There must be something going on here that keeps you from recognizing the truth in everyone's eyes. HOT WUK (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is anyone who has a problem with the WP:GNG guidelines can visit that page and start a discussion on the talk page. I agree it's bad form to vote to delete an article because you WP:DONTLIKEIT and simply don't agree with the official Wikipedia guidelines. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to waste anyone's time than to reiterate the truth in line with Wikipolicy as per the previous. HOT WUK (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] It was also just announced Hennessey will be one of 10 stars competing in The Challenge: Champs vs Stars season 3, which will only further increase her exposure.[17] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just copy edit. This article needs to be completely rewritten if kept.
  • Merge or Redirect: To be honest I find zero reasons to keep but am contesting ignored policies and guidelines and head counts. Everything I find is associated with Cardi B, as exampled by the first round of nine refbombed sources (all but 2: Really! check them out) by user:Lonehexagon, and so important to push that they were repeated in a round two, surely proves that notability is inherited. One article admits HENNESSY CAROLINA ALMANZAR IS NOT AN EASY PERSON TO GOOGLE. Add to this that of the 12 references on the article the VH-1 news is the only one that does not include either "Cardi B" or variants of "Cardi B's Younger Sister". An event that is scheduled to occur but has not happened yet per crystal ball (what Wikipedia is not) and her sister splashed on almost everything "Hennessy Carolina" would seem to make it apparent that I like it (not valid reasoning) or IAR (better valid reasoning) as the only real justification for keeping. Otr500 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INHERITED is about how "Notability requires verifiable evidence" and simply being related in some way does not prove notability without significant discussion about a subject as an individual. However, in this case there is significant coverage about Hennessey in secondary, reliable sources, which means WP:INHERITED is not applicable here. The article that says she's hard to google is from September last year and is one of the older sources. A more recent article says in the title: Who Is Cardi B's Sister? Hennessy Carolina Is Pretty Famous On Her Own. WP:GNG states a subject may be notable if they received significant coverage in independent sources. According to the guidelines, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Hennessey is discussed in the title and body of all those sources, even if Cardi B is also mentioned. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Is Wikipedia messing up? It shows that this is the first edit for IP User 2600:1000:B035:EFC0:2258:715B:CEBF:1F92. If that is right then to jump right into an AFD and policy seems strange. I am not trying to assume bad faith but can only see what I see which would seem to indicate a possible SPA or something. Otr500 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTINHERIT. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. I think the WP:NOTINHERIT is strongly relevant to this discussion, and I do not believe this person to be independently notable enough on her own to warrant her own article. Much of her fame and status is based far too heavily off her sister, and any possible notable output is based off being a recurring character in one reality show (and appearing in an episode of a game show in the future). The article itself reads like a saccharine gossip column, unencyclopedically describing her significant other as "mysterious" while only giving a first name (possibly an abbreviated variant, even). As well, 2 million social media followers should not, by itself, be basis for Wikipedia inclusion, since that is not suggestive of anything other than HC's follower count and social media usage. to conclude, the article, in its present state, has no basis for existing on Wikipedia, and is written without respect for encyclopedic prose or standards. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of those magazine includes promotion for figures who haven't done much of anything--each case needs to be examined. No source is reliable for anything, and this sort of coverage is not reliable no matter where it appears. If one has to write an headline saying someone's sister is pretty notable on her own, it actually implies exactly the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. While I don't necessarily agree because I personally don't see a clear policy-based argument to disregard those sources, it is helpful to understand the rationale for doing so. --Sykes83 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Cass

Maurice Cass (edit | 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: fails notability as actor and GNG. Sole links are to unreliable sources: ({{IMDb name|143912}}{{tcmdb name|id=30465|name=Maurice Cass}}{{Find a Grave|8025087}}) Quis separabit? 20:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while not the most famous actor, he had roles in dozens of notable films.Vincelord (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:54, 17 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

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: [30]), and some others from the net and Google Books ([31], [32], [33], 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TVS Credit Services

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

I can find no evidence this is a notable company and it's parent company is questionable. I can find nothing other than primary sources, press releases and passing mentions. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:19, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centres of influence

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

Not notable Volunteer1234 (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:18, 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 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Targeted Response @Otr500: regarding "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" - only the first line is sole definition, which is standard form. The second part regards things to bear in mind about usage, and the latter considerations about those being included. Regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE it doesn't seem to violate any of the standard given variations. General Notability (more specifically, lacking it) would seem the primary grounds to reject this, and I feel it avoids that, just. [p.s. wasn't sure of correct procedure to provide an AfD response severed from comment with a relist - apologies if incorrect] Nosebagbear (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Good response to me. The lead states "marketing term" and the article has no distict direction so is vague. It uses wording like "key people within a businesses", "professional advisers of customers". Except to some "specialist" or someone "in the know" this "term" would have no actual meaning and I still don't know what it "actually means" even after reading the article. Try reading the article as a member of the general reader world. Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the "not a dictionary" argument is valid. The rest of the thin, poorly written article is a marketing advice, which is also something that wikipedia is not WP:NOTADVICE. I did try to copy edit the article but there isn't anything there to save. Volunteer1234 (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There might some notoriety for the term, but if this page and the lack of web articles cited is any indication, it's not a full encyclopedia entry's worth of content or cultural significance. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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)

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

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

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

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]
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)

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

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)

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

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]
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 [37][38] 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)

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: [43], [44], [45], [46] 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

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 | 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

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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LERA Consulting Structural Engineers

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

Article is increasingly turning into an advert about this engineering company. The "1923" date is unlikely, because Leslie E. Robertson was born in 1928 and his article says he founded his business in 1982. There's little other than passing mentions here in industry publications, certainly nowhere near enough to convince me the subject passes WP:NCORP. Engineering advisors are unlikely to claim any of the limelight in big architectural projects, so I'm not convinced there will be much (or any) pre-internet coverage to change the situation. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.instead of deleting let's talk how to modify the content in order to make the article compliant. Much of the information is from the firms own website and can be validated elsewhere as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.73.120.36 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, talk away! But the task isn't to prove the claims are true, but rather to show LER meets Wikipedia notability criteria for companies. Wikipedia isn't a listings service for structural engineers. Sionk (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the nom's question about when the firm was established, this source indicates that Worthington, Skilling, Helle, & Jackson, whose John Skilling and Leslie E. Robertson were involved in the engineering for the Twin Towers [47], traces back to a W.H. Witt Company in Seattle. The article on their current incarnation, Magnusson Klemencic Associates carries the same 1923 date, and it looks more appropriate there than for this article. (The LERA firm is indicated here as members of a trade organisation since 1981.) AllyD (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article's tendency towards a slideshow brochure of developments in which the subject firm played a role is a concern, albeit one which could be addressed through article protection and insistence that the WP:COI conditions are followed. Regarding notability, though, it is WP:NOTINHERITED from work done on notable developments. The best source is probably the New Yorker item from 2001, though it is more about Leslie E. Robertson and mentions LERA only as assisting in the post-9/11 investigations. I don't see enough to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability for this firm. AllyD (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability isn't inherited, references fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:11, 18 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. Will consider the 3 pages that were added after the fact as soft delete J04n(talk page) 18:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Distortion 2010 Tour

Social Distortion 2010 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)

Fails WP:NCONCERT and WP:SIGCOV. Barely any coverage outside routine gig news. Nothing of wayback machine. I thought there would be more. scope_creep (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:MULTIAFD would be a good idea here. Marquardtika (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Folks, Please consider the following page that I have nomintated:
Social Distortion Summer Tour 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Social Distortion Fall 2012 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Social Distortion Winter 2012 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is barely any secondary coverage. The Rolling Stone article may be a start. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Note I replied above, but this is about the three tours added later) Delete Summer: Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as being unreferenced for two and a half years. Fall: Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. The first two references are to Social Distortion's website that produce error 404s. The other two references are general pre-tour release of dates that do not show the tour is notable. Winter: Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as being unreferenced for five years. Aspects (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting only to give the additionally nominated pages a full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:51, 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 20:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Soomro

AfDs for this article:
Naseer Soomro (edit | 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 AfD'd this last year but failed to follow up so somehow it was rescued. This BLP was created by a close relative of the subject User talk:Arif80s who also created several other Soomro related BLPs - which were eventually deleted via AfDs last yr. So basically the subject fails to meet GNG and WP:AUTHOR.. the article claimed the subject has authored some non-notablel books and some dubious and offline sources were cited to backup some other made up claims which fails verification. Seemingly articles appears on a notable personality but when one digs a little deeper, can locate some trivial coverage and namecheks in few Pakistani newspaper stories but nothing in depth or significant... Anyways I've trimmed down the page.. If anyone can cite here some solid coverage (two links would be more than enough) and I'll be willing to withdraw this nom. Saqib (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note This nom has been placed under some wrong category. Would appreciate if someone fix it. --Saqib (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Already discussed and decision is keep. No need to discussed once again. Arif80s (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arif80s: I am afraid you're being topic banned and so you're not supposed to comment on AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping in mind, this article is written by me. How can you ban me on discussion of article delition? Any policy? Arif80s (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Arif80s:Why not ask here ? --Saqib (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Mr. Saqib, Where is my article? Where is my reference given in this article? You want to discussed only single line article? Your this act is very bad impression on users who want to write enwk. Naseer Soomro is renowned sindhi language poet. His six books published. Naseer Soomro's poetry is included in CSS Sylabus. You removed this reference. Why? Arif80s (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had cited some dodgy, arguable sources on a BLP which I've rightfully eliminated and I urge you to not reinstate them. If the subject is indeed some renowned poet, why not establish here the N? --Saqib (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Arif80s: Can you re-list the sources here? As the discussions continue, other users can also air their views and we come to some meaningful conclusion. --Muzammil (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@امین اکبر: Teachers and authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO. their ability to qualify for standalone Wikipedia entry is determined by criteria at WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR, respectively. --Saqib (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My unassertive comment was not intended to 'convince' anyone.  samee  converse  20:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found some stuff related to the subject (Naseer Soomro) on the internet which probably our friends can re-examine before any conclusion (youtube is not a source; just an indicative):
  1. Listing Naseer as a notable poet by Dawn newspaper: "Poets Naseer Soomro, Sattar Pirzada, Ghufran Ahmed, Dr Mansoor Malik, Irtiza Husain Gohar, Atif Tauqeer, Babar Ata, Yasmeen Yaas, Bilqees Ali, Sheeba Haidri, Ghalib Irfan and Prof Khayal Afaqi paid their tribute to Sacchal Sarmast in verse."
  2. Listing of Naseer as a notable poet in Daily Pakistan: You can look for Urdu text "نصیر سومرو"
  3. Naseer in the book release event reported by BBC: You can search in the same way. The write up carries Naseer's critical comment as well.
  4. Naseer Soomro recites his poetry at Anis Ansari Academy function
  5. sale link of Naseer's book --Muzammil (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced. The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. Merely having some namechecks type of press coverage (given their abundance, these days) does not makes one notable enough to merit a standalone entry on WP. Further, GNG says require "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". & I am afraid the provided coverage is not satisfactory. --Saqib (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one who's talking about "sources to support claims within an article" and your distinction between those sources and sources to establish WP:N is completely made up. If you actually look at WP:GNG you'll see that it requires sources that discuss "the topic directly and in detail," which is what we have here. This is not "namecheck type of press coverage," whatever that is, but coverage that is more than a trivial mention. And there's more in my !vote below. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It is you who thinks the provided sources discuss the topic directly and in detail, and that this is not "namecheck type of press coverage. Two sources provided above are in Urdu language. Do you even know this language or just being airy ? Anyways, I don't have anything further to say and I leave it on the closing admin to decide whether the provided coverage is mention in passing or not. --Saqib (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There are more sources even than are present in the article and are mentioned above. Here are three more:
    • Ailing writer awaits govt assistance - Pakistan Press International May 17, 2016 Tuesday
    • Poet protests against fake cases - Pakistan Press International April 12, 2014 Saturday
    • Mushaira held in honour of visiting poets of Iran - Pakistan Press International March 4, 2014 Tuesday
Clearly meets WP:GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what this Pakistan Press International is? it was used to be a news agency but now it is more like a news aggregator website with no editorial board at all. Just send them a release and they will publish it without even verifying the content. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: just found an article on Pakistan Press International as it now exists on Enwiki. --Muzammil (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article makes one notable but not reliable. We've article on Daily Mail but that does not means we should cite them as a source. And see what I noted above, this agency was used to be a proper news agency but now it is more like a distributor of press releases with no editorial board at all. None of news articles carried out by them contain intellectually independent content and are all based on announcements and PRs. --Saqib (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TNT, with no prejudice against someone re-creating this with better, not so fancrufty sources. I am also willing to userfy or email a copy on request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undead (Discworld)

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

Contains only plot summary from the Discworld novels (WP:NOTPLOT). Such content belongs in fan wikis; Wikipedia treats fiction from a real-world perspective (WP:WAF). No indication that this particular topic (as opposed to the individual novels and the series) is notable per WP:GNG. Tagged for sources for 3 years without success. Sandstein 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a lot that needs working on in Discworld, and while opinions on how to best address this may vary, I'm entirely convinced that piecemeal deleting parts of 'meh' content is not the best way to approach upgrading our Discworld content to encyclopedic value. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • Keep [49], [50], [51], [52] (note that this is a book pointing to another journal article), [53]... and more. There are quite a lot more RS'es discussing Pratchett's use of the undead as social commentary on minority rights. Of course, the current article doesn't reference any of these, but it's clear that the topic itself is notable and that it can be improved through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, these are reliable sources, but I'm not sure that they amount to more than passing mentions. We could write perhaps a paragraph's worth of a proper article based on these sources, and that content would fit well in an existing Discworld article. That's not a reason not to delete this huge pile of in-universe fancruft, which is outside the scope of Wikipedia per WP:NOTPLOT. Sandstein 09:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to trim the article appropriately per WP:NOTPLOT, WP:WAF, or personal preference, and it would be a good thing if more people did actually improve articles on notable topics that currently stink. What's not appropriate is to delete an article on such a notable topic when regular editing, to include merging and redirection, would suffice to remedy the problem. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed. If the topic is notable (which I don't think this is), but the content is worthless, then it's best to delete and have somebody competent start over. Sandstein 09:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support your opinion with policy, please. WP:TNT is an essay; WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ATD are possible alternatives to deletion. To implement them, somebody needs to be interested in actually doing the work - that is, deleting all the crufty plot summary and replacing it with well-sourced real-world-based content. I don't I see you doing that work. And I also don't think that we have enough sources to base a full article on. Sandstein 07:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't cited any policy for your opinion, merely explained how you interpret the deletion policy I cited in a way that isn't supported by the text of the policy. I would love to have time to fix all of Discworld, and Babylon 5, and Stargate, and every other fictional franchise that I've actually read or seen, yes. Failing that, I simply struggle to find time to argue against non-policy-based deletion attempts like this one. You could redirect it somewhere, but you don't, probably because... well, I don't know, redirecting it surely takes less time than debating me here, so why didn't you? :-) And even if you disagree that this should exist as a standalone article due to the sufficiency of the sources, there's still plenty of V content here, so no, it shouldn't be deleted just because you don't want to take the time to merge or redirect it appropriately. You are the one who decided the status quo was insufficient, so the burden of action is on you. Nothing prevents you from rolling your eyes, wishing someone would fix it, and moving along without doing anything. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 9 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) 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/retarget to be a more general page on races in Discworld (maybe Sentient races in Discworld), and move the character descriptions to Discworld characters. The article isn't sure whether all the races described are undead, and neither am I. I wouldn't object to a TNT deletion; the article is entirely unsourced and written with a far too in-universe POV. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT. Actually, I'm not sure TNT is effective against undead. Normally you need something like a silver-tipped crossbow bolt, or prolonged exposure to sunlight, but WP:TNT is the weapon we have available, so it'll have to make do. Reading over the page, I don't see how any amount of fixing will make it into an encyclopedia article. It's been tagged for improvement for ten years, so I don't think anybody could accuse us of being hasty if we deleted it now, with no prejudice against somebody writing a new version from scratch. I'd be happy to userfy it, if somebody wants to use that to assist in writing a new version. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT article is unsourced in universe fancruft. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Eldenle

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

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. Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shut eye

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

Has been a stub for 4+ years. Talk page suggestion for merge has been ignored. RobP (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:18, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Lakhanpal

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]
  • 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

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]
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

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)

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memon Abdul Ghafoor

Memon Abdul Ghafoor (edit | 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 subject received some press coverage [54], [55] when he was appointed as chairman of the Sindhi Language Authority.. but i believe they are not enough to pass WP's notability requirement. Saqib (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Does have some coverage. I'll go with weak delete here for now.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Eastmain. He has accomplished quite a lot of research papers, its just that they aren't available online yet.

1. Philosophy of Knowledge in the poetry of Shah Latif . Kalachi (Research Journal) shah Latif chair University of Karachi.3/4, 2000. 2. Question of creation in Sindhi Literature, Kalachi (Research Journal) Shah Latif chair University of Karachi. 4/1,2 2001.3. Philosophy of Existentialism of Sindh and Modern Existentialism, Kalachi (Research Journal) Shah Latif Chair University of Karachi. 4/3,4 2001. 4. Philosophy of Life in the poetry of Shah Latif................................................... I'll make a change here from weak delete to weak keep.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: None of the books or research work authored by the subject is notable enough to warrant an entry on WP. I don't think authors of books are something that would be expected to have an article on WP unless they meet GNG. Authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for WP article is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Also the news piece you provided above is merely a press release with no byline. For what it's worth, only a couple of chairs of this org have their standalone bios so I assume this is some kind of bureaucratic post. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:17, 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 merge to Business incubator. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business incubators in Pakistan

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

mentioning a bunch of non-notable entities. I dont get the logic behind such a list.. WP:LISTCRUFT.. Saqib (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Not even in the remote bit encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there are other standalone articles existing like this, this and this. So, there's no harm in creating this list as WP:LC suggests that In general, a "list of X" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. And I have also made some other tweaks in the article and also in categories [56] [57]. But one thing I don't understand is that, why these things are not first discussed in talkpage of the article, instead of straightaway nominating for deletion, considering that the article was hardly a day old.  M A A Z   T A L K  03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the entities mentioned on the page does not seems to have their own standalone articles so such a list is unwarranted IMO. --Saqib (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4 of them mentioned are stand-alone articles:

About the others that I have mentioned, IMO are significant enough to be mentioned in the list, as its likely that they will also have individual articles in near-future. I don't think that's a big problem. The list is harmless.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of these four entities you listed, I suspect two should be deleted right away because they fails to meet WP:CORPDEPT. I will nom them for deletion. --Saqib (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you can nom them for deletion, but ethically speaking, you should do it after the result of this Afd. As you have already voted here(in an article) that involves those 4 articles. The reason why I say that, is because it would almost seem deliberate on your side, i.e to sabotage this article while its result is proceeding.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ma'az: On what basis would you say this? I don't think there is any restriction to remove or delete ill-sourced or non-notable stuff during AfD's. --Saqib (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you can nom them for deletion. I said, ethically speaking. IMO, nominating them during this Afd would feel like a deliberate attempt of sabotage and somewhat disruptive to this AfD.  M A A Z   T A L K  19:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be noted I've not yet nominated any page for deletion, except Ignite (Pakistan) which was obvious advertising and therefore speedy deleted. But I am planning to AfD at least two pages listed above which I believe does not pass WP:N, but unsure when.. If you feel I'm trying to disrupt this AfD, I'm happy to allow this nom run its course first. --Saqib (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've actually found more notable incubator articles in Pakistan with many reliable sources like Invest2Innovate [58]

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] and Telenor Velocity [65]. These articles will also exist independently in near future. In light of above arguments, and the increasing trend/notability of start-ups in Pakistan, I think it would be fair to keep this article.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Ma'az is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

  • Delete. Business incubators are notable, but there doesn't seem to be anything to demonstrate independent notability for business incubators in Pakistan. I would say merge to the Business incubator article, but the article is a list that doesn't call itself a list so there's nothing to merge. Marianna251TALK 23:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) - vote changed, see below Marianna251TALK 11:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about all the reference mentioned in the article.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Business incubators is also synonymous with startup incubators.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. --Saqib (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such a list does not exist for other countries.. why for Pakistan? --Saqib (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the WP:OSE argument, which revolves around both validity and non-validity. I think the article is notable, and passes Wikipedia guidelines per WP:N, which is a better argument, and on that basis, it should be kept.  M A A Z   T A L K  15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Mine one was not an argument.. I am just asking you why do we need such a list for Pakistan? I'm just curious why we don't have such a list for United States which has around 50 and United Kingdom which as over 15 notable incubators. why for Pakistan? And I'm just curios, what made you say "Business incubators in Pakistan" is notable whereas it is not, clearly. --Saqib (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the other lists can also be made. No rules against it.  M A A Z   T A L K  15:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. the lists cannot be easily made. Had this been the case, we should have such lists. Just recently, List of business incubators in Ghana was deleted because such lists does not meet WP:LISTN. & You said " I think the article is notable, and passes Wikipedia guidelines per WP:N" please explain how? --Saqib (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ma'az - the main business incubator article has a section that lists notable business incubators. At the moment it has a distinct Western bias, but that can easily be updated by people like yourself. This article, aside from the list of incubators, has nothing of substance - I can sum it up in the sentence "Business incubators are increasing in Pakistan". So what? The same thing is happening across the world. Personally, I would have considered nominating this article for speedy deletion using critera WP:A10 ("Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic"). For the article to stay, it needs to have something notable about Pakistani business incubators that does not apply to business incubators in the rest of the world - and even then I would argue that it would be better incorporated into the main article. Marianna251TALK 17:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia is hard on these articles. If an article is within the guidelines, it can be created. I think there can be separate lists of business incubators of other countries as well, as its within the guidelines.  M A A Z   T A L K  19:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The indentation of your comments was a little unclear, so I've amended it. Hope that's okay. Back on topic: it's perfectly true that articles within the guidelines can be created and retained, but you have yet to explain how this article falls within the guidelines and why you believe it is notable. I've explained why I believe that the notability of business incubators does not automatically confer notability on business incubators in Pakistan, and without that, this article lacks any notable content. That would be the case with any article about business incubators in any other nation, so suggesting that other lists could be made is a moot point. Please can you explain why you think business incubators in Pakistan fulfil the GNG of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I clearly don't agree with you - convince me. Marianna251TALK 22:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for clearing the indentations. I think the article passes WP:GNG per sources mentioned in the article, and I think, the sources do in fact talk about business or startup incubators in Pakistan. Having said that, I also think there are multiple reasons for keeping an article. Like I said in the beginning, the article also passes WP:LC, therefore the article does fall in Wikipedia guidelines.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to merge to Business incubator following updates made to the article. Ma'az has added sufficient sources for me to feel that there is now some content of substance there, but not enough to warrant its own article. If we're going by WP:LC, the sentence "The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article" seems apropos. The business incubator article only has a few incubators listed, all Western - it's nowhere near saturation. I would suggest updating the list in the main article and adding a section about global trends/national variations on business incubators for the rest of the content. Marianna251TALK 11:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair assessment; and I finally got my indentations right here. :)  M A A Z   T A L K  16:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Ruchir Modi

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]

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

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] 

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

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 keep. North America1000 12:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naty Bernardo

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

Notability per WP:NACTOR has not been established. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a source that notes her career as a villain in Filipino cinema and includes a photo of her. It would be great to find more coverage but she seem to meet WP:FILM for having played a lead role in many major films. Keep FloridaArmy (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dial911 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actress played in many major plilipino films. These don't currently have a page on wikipedia because of the low amount of philipino editors. These might be added later, and having the page of a notable philipino actess from this time period could definitely make them easier to be integrated in wikipedia.198.103.182.130 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with 198.103.182.130. It appears that she is a notable actress who appeared in important films, but as someone notable in non-English language films from past decades, there is less to actually prove her notability in English sources. There are mentions, e.g., https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2017/07/29/1722812/never-too-old, but nothing clearly in English, that I have found, that proves it. However, looking at the Filipino Wikipedia, it appears that some of her films, at least, are notable. Hence, I think that the article should be kept and additional references added. TL;DR: WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 21:21, 18 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

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axtone Records

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Axwell, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. KingAndGod 09:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have gone through and targeted all the biggest dance music DJ's record labels for deletion by labeling them "vanity labels". While such labels exist, this label does not apply to Axtone (and the others you have selected). It is a disservice to Wikipedia to be so dismissive without doing adequate research. While Axwell as a notable artist confers some notability to the label, this is only a small part its importance. Axtone is a significant and influencial labels in dance music in its own right and has released some of the most important records in the electronic music world.[1]. The label itself will even have its own stage in the 2018 Tomorrowland (festival), one of the largest music festivals in the world[2].[3]. While this article (and the other articles you have selected for deletion) should be improved and updated, they should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walru5hunterofficial (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "Axwell's Axtone celebrates 100th release with new track 'Come Together'". Dancing Astronaut.
  2. ^ "RELIVE CLASSIC AXTONE MOMENTS AS LABEL ANNOUNCE 2018 TOMORROWLAND STAGE". We Rave You.
  3. ^ Mukherjee, Nikita. "10 Of The Biggest EDM Festivals To Attend Before You Die". MensXP.
@Walru5hunterofficial: This label has no notability as a separate entity. Notability is not inherited. On Wikipedia, reliable sources are needed to verify claims and establish notability. KingAndGod 10:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KingAndGod: Again, as in the discussion about Armind, it seems you didn't actually read my comment. Axtone IS a significant and influential label in dance music in its own right and has released some of the most important records in the electronic music world.[1]. The label itself (as a distinct and separate entity from Axwell and his music) will even have its own stage in the 2018 Tomorrowland (festival), one of the largest music festivals in the world[2].[3]. Other labels with stages include Spinnin' Records and Monstercat. If this doesn't confer notability status to a label, I don't know what does. There are tens of thousands of labels in electronic music and only a very select few deserve mention in Wikipedia, consult any source on EDM and you will find Axtone's importance and catalogue to be paramount. While this article should be improved, updated and cited, they should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walru5hunterofficial (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "Axwell's Axtone celebrates 100th release with new track 'Come Together'". Dancing Astronaut.
  2. ^ "RELIVE CLASSIC AXTONE MOMENTS AS LABEL ANNOUNCE 2018 TOMORROWLAND STAGE". We Rave You.
  3. ^ Mukherjee, Nikita. "10 Of The Biggest EDM Festivals To Attend Before You Die". MensXP.
@Walru5hunterofficial: I understand your claim that it's an influential label but there should be reliable sources to back it. Merely asserting significance is not enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is an organization so its relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. The notability criteria is strict for companies and organizations and there should be in-depth coverage of reliable sources about the subject. KingAndGod 04:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT. Walru5hunterofficial, do you have any sources to back up your claim that the label is "influential" and "important"? Of the three references that you have provided in this thread, the WeRaveYou site is a promotional marketing website, the MensXP article doesn't mention Axtone at all, and the Dancing Astronaut article is suspect as the writer is only a freelance contributor to the website... his full-time job is working for the marketing department of the music group that Axtone has a publishing deal with, so he isn't an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCOPR & significant RS coverage not found. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Arishfa khan (actress)

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]

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

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

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]
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

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

The result was redirect to List of Imagine video games. Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine: Animal Doctor

Imagine: Animal Doctor (edit | 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) 09:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm fully right in the middle between !Delete and !Keep here. There is an in-depth IGN review here: [72], Game Informer supposedly gave it a D (although I can't read it from the Google Books link) here: [73], and Nintendo Power supposedly also reviewed it as seen here [74]. There's a book that mentions it but in the context of the whole Imagine series here for being somewhat sexist as well: [75]. I think there's enough sources here to theoretically make a stub, but I don't see much more to hope for anything else. Nomader (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular preference for redirect or delete and then redirect. Szzuk (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually an article there, I'm not sure why it was moved to a redirect whilst the deletion process is in place. I have reverted this Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:41, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armind

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Armin van Buuren, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. KingAndGod 09:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armada Music is one of, if not the largest and most important dance labels in EDM,[1] and Armin van Buuren is one of the most notable DJs in the world. Armind is an extremely important imprint for both parties and is held in high regard in the music world. It is commonly highly ranked separately from Armada, so its notability is not only by association therefore this is not a case of WP:CORP.[2]. While this article should be improved, it should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walru5hunterofficial (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ PAPADATOS, MARKOS. "Review: Armada and Armin van Buuren are big winners at 2018 IDMA awards". Digital Journal. Retrieved April 12, 2018.
  2. ^ "THE BEST DANCE MUSIC RECORD LABELS OF 2015 [READER POLL]". EDM sauce. Retrieved April 12, 2018.
@Walru5hunterofficial: the article is about Armind not Armada or van Buuren. This sublabel has no notability as a separate entity. Notability is not inherited. KingAndGod 10:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KingAndGod:You clearly didn't read my comment. Armind is held in high regard in the music world and highly ranked SEPARATELY from Armada, its notability is NOT only by association therefore this is not a case of WP:CORP.[1]. While this article should be improved, it should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walru5hunterofficial (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "THE BEST DANCE MUSIC RECORD LABELS OF 2015 [READER POLL]". EDM sauce. Retrieved April 12, 2018.
@Walru5hunterofficial: Merely asserting significance is not enough. There should be in-depth coverage of reliable sources that discuss Armind as a company. KingAndGod 04:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT. No evidence to back up the claim that this label is "held in high regard", and coming second on a readers poll doesn't demonstrate notability. Not notable just because of its association with van Buuren or with Armada Records, and no reliable sources discussing its notability as an individual entity. Richard3120 (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fonk Recordings

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Dannic, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. KingAndGod 09:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:36, 18 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. Merge/redirect can be discussed on talk as necessary but there are no arguments here to delete this outright. SoWhy 10:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heldeep Records

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Oliver Heldens, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. KingAndGod 09:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a nn vanity label. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a vanity label at all, as it has released material by numerous notable artists who are independent of label's founder. A notable label per NMUSIC #5. However, the article is promotional in nature. The topic is an encyclopedic one of interest to musicologists, discographers, and music historians, but there's really not much in the article (as is) that is of help to these groups. In short, notable topic, unhelpful article except for the discography section. (And I'm torn on the appropriateness of a discography section for an ongoing concern because it is inherently promotional vs. my fervent wish that someone had documented ongoing concerns back in the 1930s, say.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NMUSIC is not applicable to record labels as it is only for artists, songs and albums. Record labels are companies and their guideline is WP:NCORP which was updated recently with consensus to a more stricter requirement on sources. Releasing material by notable artists is not at all a criterion for establishing notability on Wikipedia. KingAndGod 05:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is incorrect. What are record labels notable for? Releasing notable music. WikiProject Record labels several years ago moved from under the Business umbrella to the Music umbrella. There is longstanding consensus that NMUSIC#5 is a guideline for record labels, as there is no specific notability guideline developed for record labels, despite repeated attempts. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to this, there doesn't appear to be consensus as some editors disagreed and few others agreed. I think that discussion should be reposted with RfC to gain consensus on whether record labels can be notable by passing the music guideline or not. I do support the idea of record labels being covered by WP:NMUSIC rather than WP:NCORP. KingAndGod 13:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when I click on the "News" link above I find very substantial coverage in a variety of reliable independent sources. Even if it were not independently notable, a merge to the label's owner would be the appropriate outcome not deletion. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A couple examples include this one and this one. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​These sources don't significantly discuss the label. There are just trivial mentions and one line about how the label has "garnered a cadre of success." See more here - WP:ORGCRIT. KingAndGod 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Armada Music. MBisanz talk 04:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstage Music

Mainstage 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)

Vanity label owned by DJs W&W, mainly used for their own and associated releases. The sources are primary and/or unreliable and do not indicate notability. KingAndGod 08:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost all sources are OR, others are unreliable. Notability cannot be inherited - so W&W can't just have their record label be notable. Secondary mentions of the label that were acceptable then failed under passing mention - e.g. Armada Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Armada Music. Significant number of notable artists appear on this label, but I don't see how the topic is independent of the main topic, Armada, nor would a merge there create an imbalance, since this is such a short article. The discography could be hatted. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how merging will help improve the Armada article since it contains a list of its sub-labels with no description. From the hundreds of sub-labels, adding the content of only Mainstage Music would definitely create an imbalance. I don't feel the content of this article deserves any rescuing since it has no reliable sources that actually discuss the label in-depth. It's so easy to create a label nowadays that any independent artist could do it and "establish" it on Wikipedia. KingAndGod 05:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GetApp

GetApp (edit | 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 substantial coverage in unrelated reliable sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Razer(talk) 08:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Author made additional citations of substantial coverage, detailed on talk page. Madeline(talk) 04:13, 4 April 2018 (CST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 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]

Il Chyun Kwak

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

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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Robles

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

WP:BLP, written more like a campaign brochure than a proper encyclopedia article, of a person notable primarily as a mayor of a suburb. As always, mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist, but must be reliably sourced as the subject of significant media coverage to become includable -- but the only sources present here at all are his own primary source biographies on the city's own website and the website of a utilities board he also served on, neither of which are independent of him for the purposes of establishing that he passes a notability criterion. This article appears to exist mainly to keep him from getting confused with Albert T. Robles, a different person of the same name who was previously convicted on criminal charges but was having some elements of this Albert Robles' biography incorrectly conflated with his, rather than because this Albert Robles's own notability has been properly demonstrated. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly source that he's notable enough -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. For some reason, probably of hasty typos, I did not come across those articles. And there are more out there. I remove myself from this discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above with the huge amount of sources, there is clear notability. --DTM9025 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:NPOL and being WP:TNT eligible. A local politician of marginal notability is covered in local press; the probes seem to be rather minor (i.e. not of the kind "we must keep this article"). As the article currently stands it's a promotional BLP; no value to the project. No objection to recreation if can be done with proper sources, but let's not keep such sub-par articles if noone is willing to improve it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this comment at all. What capacity do you expect sources to deal with him in? Like he's written about in Major newspapers like the LA Times and you're saying they only write about him because of his job so it doesn't mean he's notable? What are you basing that theory on? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I spent some time doing some Serious cleanup, adding most of the above sources (the FBI one if for a different mayor) and a few others (sexual assault, NFL push, early career etc.). ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added even more sources (13 in total now), his connection to Albert T. Robles (who our Robles represented) and his campaign for Campaign for Los Angeles County District Attorney. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jesse Dudas

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

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 [77], diet books eg [78], as well as academic sources eg [79] and several sources available via JSTOR [80]. 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]
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.[[81]]. Coupled with the NY Times coverage already in the article, we have multiple reputable sources calling the study famous, including Vox,[[82]] The New Yorker[[83]] and the Chronicle of Higher Education[[84]]. 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]
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. [85], [86], [87], [88], 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

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]
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: [94] SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 27 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

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 delete. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Ohri

Ajay Ohri (edit | 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 seems to be an attempt at personal branding. Neither of the person's works is substantial enough to merit an article. Decisionstats is a run-of-the-mill blog with feeble engagement. The books are mostly niche and technical; nothing groundbreaking. A simple Google search turns little more than a few related results for the person. Shubhamjain1 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain a writer with three published books (2 in Springer 1 by Wiley). One book translated in Chinese. The not so notable blogger hs ~ 1 million views as on site. Article has been on Wikipedia since two years. Deletion attempt seems more like personal vendetta and targeting (see User Shubhamjain1 does not have a page anymore).
Is there any false statement on it? Notability for article has been achieved by writing books as well as articles and interviews
Writer has been featured in Wired Magazine as well as ReadWrite magazine. In addition he has been featured in KDNuggets as one of the five data scientists for " A Day in the life of a data scientist."
Judging by proposed criterion for deletion all scientists would be considered to have written niche and technical books.
3 books in data science and mentioned in wired magazine, read write magazine, and kdnuggets. by repeatedly pointing out the blog, its obscuring the fact the author has been mentioned in magazines and written books. otherwise all data scientists would be non notable.
This is a clear personal attack by Shubham Jain for making sure business activities contribute to deletion rival blog. Shubham what have you contributed to wikipedia apart for this - that proves its a personal attack not one by honest editor.
Why the haste to put article for deletion tag and then delete page by ShubhamJain1?iwannacrib (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are far more interested in personal attacks than presenting evidence for your defense. The person in the Google search isn't me and I don't have any association (of adversary or otherwise) with the person mentioned in the article. To answer your arguments: no, writing few technical books isn't enough criterion to merit an article. If that were the case, there would be an article for every O'Reilly author. Secondly, there are hardly any comments on the Decisionstats blog, or any press mentions, or any groundbreaking posts. All three are a close proxy for notability. If such low recognition is enough to warrant an article, Wikipedia would be inundated with hundreds of thousands of them.
My account is pretty old, but I don't use it very often. Again, if you think you're being unfairly targetted, you're better-off presenting valid criteria for notability which conforms to Wiki Guidelines than ad-hominems. Shubham Jain (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lets do this analytically. Let the editors with seniority see other activity by me and Shubham Jain, including logins, ip addresses, contributions and see who is fake , or targeting attack.
Book 1 - translated kin chinese 83,800 downloads of chapters http://www.bookmetrix.com/detail/book/4745085a-286a-4093-8b44-a2f50d800243#downloads
Book 2 - 30000 chapter downloads http://www.bookmetrix.com/detail/book/76ceb105-2e40-4a23-96cc-37d893063817#downloads
Book 2 review in Journal https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v066b04/v66b04.pdf
~iwannacrib~
perhaps my fault was not putting the right links for highlighting. iwannacrib (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.114.102 (talk) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retain page for necessary and sufficient notability
1) Writer has written two books for Springer (a notable publisher) and one of the books is translated in Chinese
2) Writer has written one book for Wiley (a notable publisher)
3) Writer has written dozens of articles for Programmable Web (notable website) at https://www.programmableweb.com/profile/ajayohri
4) Writer has been interviewed in " A Day in the life of a data scientist" by KD Nuggets (Notable web site)
5) Writer has been mentioned both by Wired Magazine and ReadWriteWeb (notable websites)
6) Additional notable writings have been mentioned with proper links in articles
Wikipedia has clear issues of notability. This author in data scientist meets it. This article enhances Wikipedia rather than diminishes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwannacrib (talk • contribs) 11:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to dispute the rules of Wikipedia about the notability criteria for biographies, you are free to do so at the appropriate forum. In fact, I'd encourage you to do so. Until the rules change, we abide by them. It's actually quite simple.
In the meantime, you accused a fellow Wikipedia contributor of something extremely serious: That he's engaging in a "personal vendetta" against you for financial gain. Do you have something tangible to back up such an accusation, or would you prefer to withdraw it, apologize, and focus on the article? I'd strongly suggest you follow the second path. Take care. -The Gnome (talk)

A google and linkedin search for Shubham Jain finds a blogger for another Indian blog analyticsvidhya.com . That was the basis. Since we live in a fog of who is who and who is anonymous- that was the rationale. Yes Wikipedia has self promoted articles. You have to be fair to each tech writer here. Otherwise people who create wiki pages will be discouraged and the spam page creators would have won Iwannacrib (talk 

20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Comments by hitherto uninvolved editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually 4 poetry books but they have not been listed as notable https://www.amazon.in/Books-Ajay-Ohri/ Please consider the whole facts and retain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwannacrib (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 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.

I would recommend someone who has data science knowledge to judge here with serious prior wiki editing credntials Iwannacrib (talk

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisted twice with requests for policy-based arguments. None being forthcoming, it does not appear that consensus is forming. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK top 10 albums in 2018

List of UK top 10 albums in 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of UK top 10 albums in 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of UK top 5 albums in 1957 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of UK top 5 albums in 1956 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Lists of UK Albums Chart number ones are very complete and through, so I don't think if there is a need for lists of every album that reached 2-10 or 2-5 (why not top 20 or 40 or 100?) There's also a lot more turnover on an albums chart vs. a singles chart and much less coverage in reliable sources vs. songs on peak chart positions (number one being an exception). A comparable AfD was made in January at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/List of Billboard 200 top 10 albums in 2013. The amount of information jammed into these also meets WP:IINFO. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Noms argument appears to be idontlikeit. There is no agreement at Listn on inclusion for this type of list, if the article creator wants to write it then I'm happy for them to do so. Szzuk (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bit confused myself now... Szzuk (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strike own comment, my confusion was cleared up in the discussion below. Szzuk (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it puzzling, what exactly is the rationale for a list of top 5 (rather than top 3, 12, 20, or whatever number)? If it is something randomly chosen by the editor rather than something that has any significance, then I would vote for delete, but I would like to hear an explanation first. Note that per WP:LISTN One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, are there sources for a top 5 UK list? Hzh (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my note at the bottom, there was only a top 5 until November 1958. 03md 14:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my concern. At what point does it become WP:IINFO to list every albums's chart run/peak position in the top 10 or top 40. For individual articles for albums, you only list the peak positions of chart performance, more than that it is WP:CHARTTRAJ. Shouldn't that apply for these, too? (For example, what does it mean that an album debuted and peaked in 2016 without any reference to 2018, yet there it is in the list of UK top 10 albums in 2018. Even lists of number two songs have been deleted as extraneous (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015), but 2-10 lists are OK? Also, when used in album articles, at least the chart provider is a reliable independent source, but for these lists, they are the primary source without any other independent coverage of the topic (even less so for albums than songs), which makes "top ten" just an arbitrary number. Might as well make a list of every album that ever reached the chart. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i would argue that there is a difference with top 10 (as oppose to top 5) because many publications give weekly top 10 albums (e.g. Music Week in the UK). Top 5 however appears to be arbitrary. Hzh (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their website (http://www.musicweek.com/charts) shows top 5 and links to a 75-position chart. They also show a UK Radio and TV airplay charts. I don't think there should be top 5 lists for each chart on this page just because it's in Music Week. Perhaps there should be no top 10 lists of this sort for anything other than primary album/song charts?
Keep all. As the article creator, I believe they are worthy of inclusion, and plan to develop them like the top 10 singles articles which are in good shape and quite thorough imo. Regarding top 5/top 10, until November 1958 there was only an official top 5 published, hence it changing to a top 10 after that. We have the same thing with the singles chart - 1952 to October 1954 there was only a top 12 and this was expanded to top 20, which has been explained on those pages in the notes section. When I get to 1958 I will do similar with the album chart. 03md 14:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based arguments are too thin on ground for consensus here. Please can arguments be made in terms of policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 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 no consensus. North America1000 12:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Eskelson

Dana Eskelson (edit | 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 insufficiently notable actress; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 06:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete a biography of a living person lacking any reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's had many named roles in movies, plays and popular television series. The problem with the article was a lack of any reliable sources to actually verify any facts. I've added several newspaper entries, reviews, listings, etc, which verify some of the roles. I believe she now passes for WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article was significantly expanded on 20:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) (diff).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:55, 18 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)

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder)

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

Won some local competitions and a hallowed name of Mr. Pakistan at South Asian Bodybuilding Championship, which is equally non-notable.Not even professionally recognized.Most of sources are spammy. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete holds non-notable titles Mr. Karachi, Mr. Sindh.. Subject is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia just because he received some passing press mentions. Some of the news pieces cited in this BLP does not even mention the subject. IMO, we should not use IMAGES as a source on our BLPs because they are more like tabloid journalism. --Saqib (talk) 06:48, 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]
I would not cite coverage by IMAGES to establish the notability on AfDs. And by the way, that is not in-depth coverage. --Saqib (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Images is magazine published by Dawn Media group. It is credible and reliable. He was featured under Celebrity section. --Spasage (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are wrong. Images is not a magazine. It was used to be but no longer. Now it's more like a tabloid website doing some yellow journalism and clickbait. See here the quality of work Image producing. Fyi, EOS and ICON has replaced Images as Dawn's in paper magazine now, early last yr. --Saqib (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we drop this reference, what about other one.--Spasage (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we need at-least 2 solid references to ascertain the N. --Saqib (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reference. One you deem less solid. --Spasage (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it may be possible to close this based on the present discussion, I would prefer to see more discussion about whether the titles in question confer notability by themselves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qadir Bux Mitho

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

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

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

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]
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

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]
  • 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 04:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Aboagye

Isaac Aboagye (edit | 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 and WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's now also the captain of the Ghana team in their latest fixtures. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 17 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

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

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]
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

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

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. [109], [110]. 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]

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

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

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]

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=834080784"