< 11 April	13 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Windsor[edit]

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

I am the subject of this recently added Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Windsor According to your policy on the deletion of Biographies of Living Persons, I would like to request the deletion of this article on the basis that I am a 'relatively unknown, non-public figure'. My background as an academic and university administrator has resulted in online references to my research and other work, but none of my work has been carried out in the pursuit of self-promotion (as outlined in your descriptions of high- versus low-profile individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual). The fact that I am a 'low-profile individual' is borne out by the fact that this is an orphan page with no articles linking to it. JenniferWindsor (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the subject does not want the article I see no reason to keep it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think she passes WP:PROF#C1, and in general I am in favor of better coverage of women in academia, but WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citation counts on Google Scholar are high enough to suggest a pass of WP:PROF#C1, but I don't think that overrides WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. XOR'easter (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I disagree with the arguments presented. While the article itself is lacking detail, a quick Google search found that she is reasonably frequently cited in the main NZ media, at times because of her position at Victoria University and as a subject matter expert. It would be inaccurate to describe her as a relatively unknown, non-public figure and the article does not fit the self-promotion criteria. Some tidy up work should bring it up to WP:GNG and link it to other articles. NealeFamily (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Reluctant delete as per Stuartyeates. NealeFamily (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: Note 1: I created this article as part of my work countering WP:Systemic bias, a series of biographies on every female professor in New Zealand. Note 2: I have fairly deep WP:Conflict of interest here, both in ways that may be obvious and ways that are almost certainly not. Note 3: Thank you to User:NealeFamily for alerting me to this discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I differ with User:NealeFamily about the applicability of WP:LOWPROFILE in this case; press attention gained due to holding a role (such as an academic administrative position) is an indication that the role or organisation is notable rather that than the holder of the role (that's why it isn't already in the article already). Windsor is certainly in the lower levels of notability of academics and has expressed a wish to avoid an article. I see no reason we should not acquiesce to her request. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable, and I think it's a shame to lose a decent scientific biography, but there's no reason to be bloody-minded about keeping it if the subject requests deletion and the only major contributor doesn't object. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we should respect her request for privacy. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete as per Stuartyeates. Respect the subject's wishes and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sad to see someone reluctant to have coverage in the encyclopedia, especially a woman, but if she wants to be deleted then WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says we should let it go.Pam D 12:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a thought: do we know that the user requesting deleting actually is the subject? Should she be asked to contact OTRS or something, to verify that this isn't someone else wanting to get her article deleted? WP:AGF but sometimes we need to check. PamD 12:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that contacting WP:OTRS as per Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects would have been the way I would have done it, but I have no doubt that the subject wishes the article removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE GretLomborg (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would pass WP:Prof#1 but delete according to subject's wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 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 Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion (CSD G5). Admin User: KnightLago has already acted on the CSD request. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mlex Songz[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC) the topic of this article fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines for Musician , hasn't gotten any independent media coverage . ( NO Evidence of Notability ) Samat lib (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion (CSD G5). Admin User:TonyBallioni has already acted on the CSD request. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Aimy[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) the topic of this article fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines for Musician , hasn't gotten any significant independent media coverage . ( NO Evidence of Notability ) Samat lib (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion (CSD G5). Admin User:KnightLago has already acted on the CSD request. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Priest[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC) the topic of this article fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines for Musician , hasn't gotten any independent media coverage . ( NO Evidence of Notability ) Samat lib (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion (CSD G5). Admin User:KnightLago has already acted on the CSD request. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dyckoy[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC) the topic of this article fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines for Musician , hasn't gotten any independent media coverage . ( NO Evidence of Notability ) Samat lib (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion (CSD G5). Admin User:KnightLago has already acted on the CSD request. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oligbese[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC) the topic of this article fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines for Musician , hasn't gotten any independent media coverage . ( NO Evidence of Notability ) Samat lib (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion (CSD G5). Admin User:KnightLago has already acted on the CSD request. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Spencer[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC) the topic of this article fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines for Musician , hasn't gotten any independent media coverage . ( NO Evidence of Notability ) Samat lib (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that notability is satisfied, the nom. seems to be neutral after attempting a WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym Finder[edit]

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

Notability cannot be established via third party sources. All citations reference the website itself or a fleeting mention of it except one. Gotitbro (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page myself to try and establish notability. Please see if it is still eligible for deletion. Gotitbro (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient uses to indicate notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per DGG. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refs look typical for this kind of website. Szzuk (talk) 07:19, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Tyler (radio personality)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Article has been around since 2007 and still has no references at all. Google searches pull up mainly blogs and self-promotion sites. Voiceover work is mostly unnamed characters, no prominent starring roles. Submitting this for discussion in case others are more familiar with his work and can provide notability. LovelyLillith (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG on the back of reliable source coverage about him in media, but this article isn't showing any. Even on a ProQuest search for older media coverage that predates Googleability, I was entirely unable to verify even the strongest potential notability claim here (his work as "the voice of CTV News"), let alone any of the weaker stuff. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN — notability is measured by the depth of reliable source coverage in media that can be provided to support the article's content, and not just by what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 15 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Paris[edit]

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

Not a notable poet / self-published author (at Lulu; link is blacklisted). No reliable references and nothing in the article is verifiable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is promotional. Provided reference is self-published, as are most of the author's works. Slam poetry appearances are in a local venue without third-party coverage. Nothing to support WP:NAUTHOR. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree on all points re: self-promotion and I couldn't even find the books/stage play mentioned in the article other than on fanfic sites. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did quite a bit of searching for references but came up empty handed. You're really think that an "acclaimed American poet" would have more coverage. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 03:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is principally an academic, therefore there are fewer secondary sources.Locust320 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locust320 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 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 keep. Sandstein 20:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2005 in sports[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting this per consensus at deletion review. This is a purely administrative action; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (User talk:The Mighty Gltalk) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many month year in sports articles. I'm not sure why this one was ever singled out. As per the deletion review log, I suggest this one should remain as Keep before we discuss the merits of all items of this nature. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not fussed personally whether we keep or delete these, but merging is not practical per my comments at the Deletion Review. Leaning keep because if we are going to delete we should bulk nominate them as they are essentially identical articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I would encourage a bulk nomination. Wikipedia is not an almanac and sorting such unrelated events by date is not an encyclopedic or useful article subject. Could be moved to Portal space similar to Portal:Current events, as all this is is a list of news briefs and game outcomes that don't have anything to do with each other besides date. Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: Please think about the practicilites of a merge and reconsider this part of your !vote. The effort needed to merge the article (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 20) far outweighs the benefit to the encyclopaedia. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I support a simple delete, with encouragement to expand 2005 in sports with major events, though there are of course also already separate articles for individual sports' seasons or years. These month articles have too much news and trivia to be worth keeping, and it's all redundant. I don't see the point of keeping a combined calendar of diverse events. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 4 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)} 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No idea why this one in particular should be singled out, and a merge, as others have pointed out, is impractical given the sheer number of articles. But that doesn't mean the solution is to delete notable information. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not my kind of article but useful to some, there's no point in merging these articles and little value in deleting them. Szzuk (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite contrary to what has been said above, WP does incorporate many of the functions of an almanac -- see WP:NOT. This is therefore appropriate, and in general there is too much material for a merge--that obviously won;t be the case in all topics, but it will be for sports. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Too much info to merge. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:05, 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 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. ansh 666 04:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hennessy Carolina[edit]

(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]

Keep I updated the article with more info and citations. She has been appearing regularly in the news since BET did an extensive piece on her last September,[1] including articles about her style, her relationship with Cardi B, her personal life, etc. She also regularly appeared on the long-running reality show Love & Hip Hop: New York with her sister. The article now easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think she might also pass WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" because she has over 2 million followers on Instagram. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2 million instagram followers isn't that much nowadays, especially because they can be bought for a few thousand dollars. Information can be included in her sisters article.Wikitigresito (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article also passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 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.[9] Lonehexagon (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say this was premature, but it's only a matter of hours old. It's a deletion solution in search of an issue. Even a cursory glance of search engines and news aggregators shows clear passing of WP:GNG through significant non-incidental individual coverage. 2600:1000:B035:EFC0:2258:715B:CEBF:1F92 (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Cardi B - four lines of pure gossip that has no place on an encyclopedia. Only relevant for appearing alongside with her sister at the Grammys, which is far from enough. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 23:15, 6 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°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°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]
- @Otr500: probably just a dynamic IP. I've seen a similar IP address (or addresses) make constructive contributions to deletion and RM debates. feminist (talk) 11:27, 12 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]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep. While she is primarily known because of her relationship with Cardi B, there is plenty of non-trivial coverage of her so that the article is verifiable and easily passes WP:GNG. In fact, WP:NOTINHERIT even addresses this situation directly: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". --Sykes83 (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good third party sources. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no independent notability. Trying to stretch the gossip and PR into reliable coverage is absurd from the pov of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cardi B#Family. Clear case of WP:NOTINHERIT, looked through the sources mentioned here and on the page and saw nothing except brief mentions, and as User:DGG summed up gossip and PR. --J04n(talk page) 12:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be helpful if those advocating for delete could specifically address the full-length feature articles in BET and to a lesser degree Vogue and Bustle. Are we to disregard that BET and Vogue are reliable sources with significant coverage about the subject? --Sykes83 (talk) 18:02, 19 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]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; the contents are just an aggregation of gossip, and we are not a tabloid. Sandstein 20:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some coverage in reliable sources, and she's not just known for being Cardi B's sister. Barely passes WP:GNG. Once the upcoming show airs it would be a full keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into into Cardi B#Family. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Increasing recent coverage of Hennessy Carolina's independent projects. No reason to penalize Hennessy Carolina just because articles about her activities typically also mention her famous sister Cardi B. You don't become more notable by being related to somebody famous, but no reason you should become less notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:56, 22 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 21:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of books on Welsh cuisine[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a list of cookbooks, and it appears none of these books have stand-alone entries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "not a list of cookbooks" doesn't really hold up - there isn't a fundamental reason it wouldn't be allowed. However "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" WP:LISTN - there aren't any references given bonding Welsh cookbooks together, which is what would be needed under this. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LISTN (as there are no notable books) and WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User: Vouliagmeni The list was made as part of the Welsh Cuisine project and I do hope it meets Wikipedia's criteria. I am preparing an introduction to explain the nature of the types of writing on this cuisine which should assist in explaining the article's relevance.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If you could find professionally published bibliographies of welsh cookbooks or cookery (not exactly the same thing), LISTN would be satisfied. After a very brief non exhaustive search I found this. (2) If you could find bibliographies of cookbooks or cookery this might be justified as a legitimate spinout or daughter list of the main list of cookbooks or bibliography of cookery. On the same search I found "Culinary Landmarks: A Bibliography of Canadian Cookbooks, 1825-1949" (University of Toronto) [18], and what seems to be a bibliography of cook books in the Annual Report of the New York State Library, and lists of the best cookbooks from the Guardian, Telegraph and Observer, so it is clear there is scope for bibliographies in this general area. (3) I advise caution before deleting things, because it should be possible to produce some kind of list of cookbooks. James500 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User: Vouliagmeni - all except the nominator seem to accept that there isn't anything per se against the article existing - it's just because we're lacking a reliable source about welsh cookbooks, currently it's just a list you've put together 1 at a time. I don't know if you were still planning on adding that addition, and whether it was going to have any useful sources, but please do if it would! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 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. Sandstein 20:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Goodnow[edit]

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

I'm unsure how much of this is puffery, and how much is notability. Being a managing partner of the 200th-largest law firm in the US generally isn't notable, and coverage like the Phoenix Business Journal seems promotional, though I can't access the entire piece. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 13 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 Mister Global. Sandstein 20:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Văn Sơn[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Winning Mister Global is not a guaranteed notability pass. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mister Global, which doesn't have inspiring referencing either but seems to have satisfied a 2016 AFD. In any case, plausible search term; redirects are cheap. Pedro Gicca might very well earn the same outcome. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, plausible search term. Szzuk (talk) 07:16, 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 keep. Sandstein 21:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Yong (politician)[edit]

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

There are two references, and Reference 2 does not mention the name at all. There's indeed an individual named Zhang Yong with the National Development and Reform Commission per [19], but he is clearly not the same person as the real estate businessman mentioned in Reference 1. (Simply compare the men in these photos, [20] with [21]). I don't know who this article is supposed to be about, the government official or the real estate businessman, or if either one is notable. Timmyshin (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a peculiar case. There is a politician named Zhang Yong who is certainly notable. He served as Director of the China Food and Drug Administration (see China Vitae and zh:张勇 (官员)), a minister-level position. But as noted by the nominator, the article completely mixes up two different people with the same name. The article needs to be either WP:TNT'ed or rewritten. -Zanhe (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've nuked all the info about the unrelated businessman, and expanded the article with other positions he's held. It should now be kept as a workable stub about a high-ranking politician. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Zanhe: Oops, my mistake - didn't notice the two were not the same person. Thanks for your edits. Sorry for the confusion! Λυδ α cιτγ 06:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Audacity: no worries. China Vitae has also mixed up the two people, giving the businessman's birth place to the politician. -Zanhe (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much better than this. The roles claimed here would certainly get him into Wikipedia if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for them, but none of them are "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists — but the sourcing here largely isn't cutting it for getting him over GNG. Two of the three footnotes are mere directories, and while the third does appear to represent media coverage that's substantively about him, it takes more than just one viable source to pass GNG if that source isn't verifying anything that would constitute an automatic free pass over any SNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He served as Director of the China Food and Drug Administration, making him the Chinese counterpart to Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Article is still short, but AfD is about establishing notability, which the existing sources have established beyond reasonable doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some English sources: [22] [23] [24]. And there are thousands more. I'll add some to the article if I have the time, but I'm busy with other things and don't want to be sucked into becoming its main author. -Zanhe (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those three sources you singled out are primary sources, not reliable, independent or notability-supporting ones — a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage, not by being the subject of press releases from his own employer — and the one that is media coverage counts as one data point toward a requirement for several data points. Scott Gottlieb is not notable just because he exists, or even because of his title — he's notable because he gets a GNG-passing volume of media coverage for doing his job, and it hasn't yet been shown that Zhang Yong gets a comparable degree of coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, that's equivalent to saying the US gov is not a reliable source for biographical information about American politicians. And claiming the top food and drug regulator of the world's biggest country does not receive enough coverage to meet GNG simply stretches the bounds of credulity. Didn't I provide you the Google search link in addition to the three I casually picked? You could've gone through the first few pages to find wide media coverage such as [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. And these are merely English sources. There are far more in Chinese, but I've already wasted too much of my time on this. -Zanhe (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a source that's valid for the verification of facts and a source which is valid for the conferral of notability. There's only one type of source that can do the latter thing, and that's substantive media coverage about the person in sources fully independent of him. Even for a US government official reflected in the US government's own website, that website does the "verification of the fact" thing, but does not do the "conferring notability for the fact" thing. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Zanhe's arguments. Article should be equipped with tags that will attract users who know the subject well to further expand the article, clean it and add references. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that the correct person has been identified, Zanhe's case is stronger. The person is the head of the NRDA, has GNG coverage. If any link to Mandarin Wikipedia article, share or else would recommend that is created after this. --Simone2049 04:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simone2049: the Chinese Wikipedia article was created five years ago, see zh:张勇 (官员). -Zanhe (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe: strengthens the case even further. Article in Mandarin around the same length in English, which is good for global alignment on Wiki. -Simone2049 (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has held several positions easily senior enough to meet the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 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. Sandstein 20:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IrishCentral[edit]

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

We successfully speedy deleted this piece of industrial waste that had been dumped into Wikipedia and subsequently groomed by company minions. This media organization is not notable per WP:NCORP and we are not here to be anybody's free advertising. Delete and salt and let's all go do something wholesome. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And getting worse with yet more promotional editing, adding unsourced industrial garbage to our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IrishCentral.com has been covered in The New York Times, Fortune Magazine, Huffington Post and many other leading publications--information now available on their wikipedia page.Its' founder is an internationally known journalist and a key player in Bringing peace to Ireland [33]

It broke two world exclusives,Gawker.com among others credited them with breaking the tragic story of the death of Natasha Richardson, wife of Liam Neeson and Fortune.Com credited them with the world exclusive about the secret meeting of major billionaires in New York led by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to create a worldwide philanthropy.(see links on Wikipedia article. The publication has been outspoken on the issue of illegal immigration calling for DACA to be passed and new laws that are not anti-immigrant passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurles2 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thurles2: I have no reason to not believe what you posted above, but what you need to understand is that none of that is really relevant to whether this article is ultimately kept or deleted. What matters is whether it can be demonstrated that the company satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. It's the Wikipedia notability of the company itself which is going to be discussed in this AfD, and this notability really has nothing to do with who founded the company or who works (or once worked) for the company. Also, since you seem fairly new to Wikipedia editing, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to better familiarize yourself with how these discussions tend to work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - press commentary about this site is minimal and does not establish notability. Shritwod (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Jytdog has it exactly right. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, it is the leading brand in the Irish Studio stable, which has a significant, notable collection of Irish magazines. Bogger (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not speak to NCORP or any WP policy or guideline relevant to a deletion discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 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. Sandstein 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Stone[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASE even if unsourced content could be verified. No, Not I (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable per nom, but even if he were notable, there isn't really any usable content here. E.g. "he became the ace and go to guy on the pitching staff". Name of the creating user indicates a possible COI in play, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a biography written by a relative, Username "Emattstone18". Clearly fails all notability guidelines. It's a shame this was up since 2013 without being nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant for articles on every failed minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though it is wholly unnecessary to refer to the subject as a "failed" player. Particularly where the article appears to have been created by a family member who may be reading this discussion, we ought not resort to such derogatory language. A little decorum, please. Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 14 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. Sandstein 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarangapani[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable individual. Unreliable self-published reflink sources. Fails GNG. Quis separabit? 19:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's current state is grim, but this isn't cleanup. A focused Google Books search returns snippet views of quite a few seemingly reliable sources--including at least a couple scholarly journals on the topic of Indian musicology--that seem (based on the available excerpts) to regard Sarangapani as historically influential. The article would very much benefit from someone with experience in the field and access to the appropriate sources, but I think this is more an example of the difficulties in sourcing pre-Internet topics from certain parts of the world (such as, here, India), rather than a lack of notability. Unfortunately, I don't think I can arrange access to the requisite works in anything like short order. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will add valid sources, but need time. He is closely related to Venugopalaswamy Temple, Karvetinagaram and there is valid article source regarding Sarangapani in this article. He is one of the famous medieval poets of Padam tradition in Telugu. aggi007 (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course, he is notable. See, e.g., [34] (pp. 448-449), [35]. --Tamtam90 (talk) 23:25, 13 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 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot Monitor[edit]

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

Non notable software, written as an advertisement. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been revamped totally to adhere to the neutrality wiki requirements. Regarding notability, the list of references has adequately shown that the software appears consistently in lists of TOP "N" timetracking software to warrant it being notable. Peterleung01 talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSOFT. It hasn't received substantial coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 23:14, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rocca (Italian-American rapper)[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable musician; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 19:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tourism Year 2011[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional article Rogermx (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails practically every criteria. Article is almost a joke Globe2trotter (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Wikipedia material. London Hall (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nothing resembling a valid rationale for deletion has been presented. Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Daughters of the Confederacy[edit]

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

Unauthorized use of trademark Gi076011 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for United Daughters of the Confederacy The name "United Daughters of the Confederacy"® is a registered trademark of the General Organization and may not be used outside the Organization without the express written consent of the United Daughters of the Confederacy®. The official UDC insignia is a registered trademark of the General Organization and may not be used without the express written consent of the President General. I have checked with the current President General and she did not grant permission for the use of either the name or the insignia on Wikipedia. There is no record that any previous President General approved Wikipedia's use of the name or insignia on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gi076011 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep - no policy-based deletion rationale offered. Wikipedia (as any other reference work) covers many organisations and products that hold trademarks, and does not require the trademark holder's permission to do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfeclty notable topic. Ridiculous rationale for deletion, from an obvious partisan inside the group, likely concerned about the (accurate) description of the group as working to maintain white supremacy. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy Keep but maybe we need to prominently note on the talkpage that UDC is trying to not only influence the page but delete it. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indu Prakash (astrologer)[edit]

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

This is a re-nomination of the page formerly nominated by Saqib at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya Indu Prakash; the page has been moved into and out of draft space several times of the past week. The original concern was "Most of the coverage about this Astrologer in India TV website which I think is not independent of the subject so fails GNG." Regarding the references included, one is an interview [36], the rest have been either trivial or re-publications of self-published info. He is apparently a TV show host. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except this, I find none of the cited source on this article independent or reliable enough to be cited on a BLP. Salt both titles if deleted to avoid re-creation. PS. @Power~enwiki: the result statement on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya Indu Prakash is bothering me. Could you amend it and make it more clearer like "Delete and Draft-ify". --Saqib (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
not delete First of all the sources are not self published. Second, He is notable personality and national TV of france has declared him amoung top three astrologers of world. Thirdly, he has been awarded with the title of Mahamahopadhyay, it is most rare title given to him by Shankracharya (Pope) of Hinduism. Wikipedia is not having any article on title "Mahamahopadhyay". I have the proof in my hinduism official magazine but it is not online how I can cite offline reference? Fourth, he is not hosting show, but he is on India TV from last 7 years, it is commendable achievement. The show is not advertorial but it is part of TV channel.--Spiritualbanda (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC) User blocked for sock-puppetry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete The article is also having it's references from tribune which is government news website. Saqib is Muslim I guess why he is being considered for Hindu matters. Yes the acharyaji is highly known in entire India. --IndianGirlDiva (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Duplicate sock vote struck power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianGirlDiva: & How do you know I am Muslim?--Saqib (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Saqib: your id name tells.--IndianGirlDiva (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spiritualbanda. --Saqib (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, I've struck the duplicate vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~How to use this page for discussion?--Neerajmadhuria (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete No credible source that profiles him. Fails indepth and significant coverage criteria. A lot of the references are 'profiles'. Not news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globe2trotter (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject and badly-written article. London Hall (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. samee converse 08:24, 13 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 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrol, Cape[edit]

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

"Cape Ferrol" is not a name recognized in the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base, and a Google search for "Cape Ferrol" Newfoundland turns up only 19th-century sources (like that cited in the article). From the coordinates given in the article and the similarity of names, this may be, or may be near, what is now called the New Ferolle Peninsula at 51°1′29″N 57°4′34″W / 51.02472°N 57.07611°W / 51.02472; -57.07611, but that would be just a guess. I suppose that redirecting to Reefs Harbour-Shoal Cove West-New Ferolle would be a possibility; but given the nonstandard inversion of the title and the uncertainty of the identification, deletion seems the better course. Deor (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GEOLAND L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might very well be the New Ferolle Peninsula as Deor suggests, but we'd need a source to verify that rather than simply assuming it to be true — and even if it is, WP:GEOLAND wouldn't guarantee it an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, if all we could do was state that it exists but couldn't actually say or source any significant information about it besides stating that it exists. Also, we don't invert names of geographic entities as Wikipedia article titles — so even if it is really the New Ferolle Peninsula, there wouldn't be any value in retaining this title as a redirect to the correct place (though no prejudice against creation of a new redirect from the correctly ordered title, if desired and verified.) Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 15 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 Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion (CSD G5). Admin User:TonyBallioni has already acted on the CSD request. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naxis Dg[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC) the topic of this article fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines for Musician , hasn't gotten any independent media coverage . ( NO Evidence of Notability ) Samat lib (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looked online but could not find much beyond a number of social media publications on the subject. London Hall (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanore Whitney[edit]

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

The article lacks anything approaching a reliable source, and a search did not produce any. Wikipedia is not meant to be IMDb and contain a comprehensive list of everyone in Hollywood films John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 15:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 15:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 15:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles for people whose acting career consists exclusively of unnamed or otherwise minor rolls is usually all but a foregone conclusion. But here, I don't think it's the right one. Although her film career was meager, her vaudeville career was not, and resulted in quite a bit of contemporary coverage as well as inclusion in more modern retrospectives of the period. This book confirms her career began as a protege of Bill Robinson, and offers a claim to a world-record tap dancing performance in 1937. From a period source, Billboard offered a not-altogether-positive review of Whitney's routine at the Loew's State Theatre in 1942. There are suggestions that she received contemporary reviews and more modern biographical attention in other sources as well, but not immediately available online. Still, I think it's fairly clear that there is enough material to build a credible article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Squeamish Ossifrage. As the nominator, I also could not find much online on the subject, but there are hints that she was relevant enough during her career. London Hall (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep -- Appears to be a complete failure of WP:BEFORE. Clearly passes WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable productions, including Timothy's Quest (lead role), Three Cheers for Love (lead role), Blonde Trouble (lead role), Rose Bowl (lead role), Campus Confessions (second billed actor after Betty Grable), Clarence (second billed actor), and Turn Off the Moon (second billed actor). Also passes WP:GNG with significant coverage like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable film actors from the first half of the 20th century who were recently AfD'd on similar grounds by the same nominator include: Shirley Chambers (AfD), William Black (AfD), Inez Palange (AfD), Granville Bates (AfD), and Jan Teulings (AfD). These were all closed as "keep". Cbl62 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 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 speedy delete. Article was speedy-deleted by User:TonyBallioni under CSD G5 on 13 April 2018. (non-admin closure) RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obaland Awards[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC) this awards was established in Benin City Edo State in 2017, and was officially launched in Benin city on the 7th of February 2018 ... The topic of this article fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines . ( it's too early ) when you take a good look to the sources provided on thís very Article it seems the Obaland Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is Running above is shadow here on Wikipedia ( No Evidence of Notability ) Samat lib (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment the sources provided on this article are just press release , NO significant media coverage Samat lib (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment According to The Independent and Leadership The process operates an in-house procedure and the Awards could be given anytime of the year only by Obaland academy committee, without nominations or public votes. see the link ^[1]^[2] ( who are the obaland academy committee ) ? ? ? Samat lib (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Obaland Academy is the project prevalently powered by Edo Reggae Festival Inc, an entertainment company established in 2017, by its CEO, Empress Adesuwa Omoyeme Obatta a.k.a Dqueen. Dqueen is a theater artist,She has also worked and managed mainstream reggae artistes like Majek Fashek, Winning Jah, The Mandators, King Wadada, ^[3] ( WHATS GOING ON ) ???? Samat lib (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of those ~~three~~ two sources, one is self-published, and the other reads like a press release. Neither is WP:RS and neither demonstrates WP:N. That's what's going on. Narky Blert (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 15:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment links shows a number of articles linked to this article created mostly by the same author or one author, some of which are up for deletion. This is probably the key linking article. There is at least the possibility the objective is to promote Obaland Awards. Some linked articles may be able to stand on their own merits or have been pre-existing. I am somewhat of the opinion draftification should be considered as 'too soon'.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added two citations to the References section. The one to The Independent is rather feeble, but the one to Leadership looks OK. Both predate this article. (I also found some citations mentioning recipients of the Award, but haven't added them; they don't demonstrate notability of the Award itself. If the article survives this AFD, things like those could be useful additions.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article creator User:Jaynee007 has recently been blocked for socking. Narky Blert (talk) 20:10, 14 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 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NDS32[edit]

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

Fails GNG, product of a NN company, no coverage, no usable sources to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 15:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PROD-ed this with the rationale "No sign of notability and no independent references; a product by a non-notable company Andes Technology." power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 13 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 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of magazines in Odia[edit]

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

Cruft list, with two single entries. Not at all useful. prod contested with 10 minutes to deletion. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-a10, List of magazines in India#Odia, where there are also just two entries. When that grows to an unwieldy size, then it can be split off to a separate article. This may take quite some time though. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already covered by List of magazines in India and no need to spin out with so few entries. (not opposed to a Redirect to that page) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK of List of magazines in India. Ajf773 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Soomro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 Train^Talk 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 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]

Comment - The deleted sources can be seen in the article's history [37]. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject is mentioned as "Modern Sindhi Poet" by Federal Public Service Commission, that is responsible for recruiting civil servants and bureaucrats in Government of Pakistan at Page-142 of Revised Scheme of Syllabus of Sindhi for CSS Competitive Examination of Pakistan, This means the subject is known to thousands of students. This reference link should not remove from the subject page. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 23:59, 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]

Vacillating an RS mentions him as the noted poet and writer and on the other hand, could not find much on the subject upon searching. samee converse 00:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot see that WP:NAUTHOR is met. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bonadea: Thanks for the Comment:! If the article is nominated for DR, the discussion should be on the original stuff and not on the edited version as it stands now. --Muzammil (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per my cleanup and Samee fails to convince me.A host (two) of trivial mentions do not maketh a man encyclopedic.And, SouthernNight's sources were crap.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:05, 16 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):

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."
Listing of Naseer as a notable poet in Daily Pakistan: You can look for Urdu text "نصیر سومرو"
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.
Naseer Soomro recites his poetry at Anis Ansari Academy function
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. Sandstein 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ziff[edit]

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

Minor roles, no coverage to be found. Most hits are for someone totally unrelated or not independent rs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least at present the one link in the article does not go to anything remotely connected to the subject. Nothing indicates he comes close to passing our notability guidelines for actors. This is one of thousands of articles we have on actors that does not pass those guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR, WP:N and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:24, 14 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. Apart from Kelly Frances herself, nobody is of the view that this article should be kept. Sandstein 20:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Frances[edit]

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

There are plenty of claims in this article that should make her notable but few if any are actually supported by RS. Most of the content is largely exaggerated and the article is clearly a a commissioned piece. I have attempted several times to clean this up but am at a loss... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the subject of this article. I just received a call from one of bookers. My management team was responsible for some of its input, but hardly all of it. I feel that all facts are supported by 3rd party sources (interviews, newspapers of different nations, magazines) though language would be an annoyance for you, and I am sorry for this - and if not, I would welcome you to delete them. However, this has managed to find much of my unknown press, and I feel the full deletion would be dishonest and wrong. May I be of assistance here? I spent years on English TV, but I don't feel that is necessarily "special". I don't know all information is accurate in terms of praise, but I am the person this article states I am and quotes (some of them nastier than i would like;)) are facts so far as I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.109.5.164 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls define |R|S: national newspapers and youtube videos are not reliable sources? I am unclear, and wish to be of help. \thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.109.5.164 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I I do wish to make it clear that I feel somewhat offended at the use of the language used by the editor - specifically, "exaggerated". or calling my activism work the equivalent of "spam" after documented victories in global legislation? pls advise. Any data that is not factual should go, that makes sense. Should 'I' just attempt to edit it to show only quotations or facts by 3rd parties? Help a gal out here? I am just fine with these kinds of deletions but sure, I knew of the page, and while I felt initially uncomfortable, I grew to feel it was worthy and important of a lifetime of activism* and cultural work as Korea's main English rep. Few know the "collaborated reality" of years of as trade that I worked in and fought to change and Wiki managed to pull together many sources for what is actually truthful, something no media has done. I don't understand how national newspaper interviews, radio, TV, magazines, published works, quotes by notable experts... or statements made by celebrities are not "reliable". Additionally, productions and videos not owned by me. Last, "I" contacted wikipedia out of concern, not to incite the deletion of the page after ***4 years. This is very disappointing and seems unprofessional. I did not - nor did my affiliates, add all of this content. I am feeling disappointed with the way this is handled as years passed and I saw wiki assist changes, though i may have caused the issue by revising the grammer when i fell ill. I am genuinely grateful for Chrissy and wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.109.5.164 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel deleting what is documented and truthful is dishonest, but your call. I take strong exception to its deletion, but am open to its editing - and any amount of editing. If nothing else, consider the activism links pls. they are globally documented and worthy to many. my career is of far less interest to me. I learned my short will go to Cannes and have more press I assume, but its not that aspect of my life which I feel made me notable in Koreas - I am a known activist and yes, voice actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:RS insufficient to support content or establish notability. WP:ARTSPAM--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chrissy, I shared a more reasonable reply with an admin, making a suggestion to preserve what I feel is a globally sourced, well documented account of important work that led to global legislation change and Korean public attitude, and also an apology for emotionality. Thanks for your hard work. I have been a little under the weather and was unsure how to process this. Wishing you the best, and happy to take your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. almost entirely promotional in intent, and and I do not think the existing article can be rescued. That the subject of the article seems to feel they are entitled to having an article here is not an argument for keeping. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it is artspam I would say the subject wanting the article argues against. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. I did not use it as such, this is your opinion based on very little. I see quotes from sources. I am not aware of what article you wish to "re-rescue". I have now asked for days.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)ok, wow. thank you, i guess. I asked for the source you requested. sorry i couldn't be of help.[reply]

Hello sir,

I wish to suggest that your team be more professional, as you suggest acting in 'good faith' or assuming such. I brought my page to your attention for help. I was accused of fraud, being paid, and then this language:

(not directed to me in a courteous way, nor were my queries answered). I feel this shows pettiness on the part of your team, and decreases your credibility. Regardless of their many reads on my character, there were more references than I could handle, nbut no one made any direct suggestions to me. I don't wish to use, financially support, or promote this service in future. I was very courteous. This is not acceptable.

Delete. almost entirely promotional in intent, and and I do not think the existing article can bevrescued. Theat the subject of the article seems to fell they are entitled to having an article here is not an argument for keeping. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC) No, as it is artspam I would say the subject wanting the article argues against. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)ok, wow. thank you, i guess. I asked for the source you requested. sorry i couldn't be of help

I had much more faith in your system prior, and find this highly childish.

I am sorry to bother you, but felt it worthy to mention

- - You may edit the article during the discussion

Shortcut WP:EDITATAFD You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).---i was instructed not to do so and never replied to (told not to until receiving a reply), then when i did try to do this with what seemed to be your needs, it was rejected.--- I was instructed not to edit my article until notice. You have not provided me proper protocol.*** I read that I should be bold*, and admin are encouraged to remedy errors. I see many, many sources. I am only reading petty conclusions. I am confused as to how this reflects neutrality on your part, or how you feel there are no sources, or my feeling a topic is worthy makes it "unworthy"? I feel you require feedback at this time. We all do. If the syntax was the issue, it would have been of great help to be told. You did not afford me this courtesy. Why is my opinion an issue over facts? I am confused as to how this reflects neutrality on your part, or how you feel there are no sources, or my feeling a topic is worthy makes it "unworthy"? I feel you require feedback at this time. We all do. If the syntax was the issue, it would have been of great help to be told. You did not afford me this courtesy. Why is my opinion an issue over facts? I was assumed to be someone with poor motives. you don't consider this is untrue. I feel this is contrary to your guidelines. I welcome and hope for your reply. I truly feel this is difficult to understand based on a plethora of sources on an issue of notability, less myself, but more so ensuing events I was part of. Again, my opinion is not on trial, according to your guidelines. Is it? I wish for amicability and feel this is a genuine mishandling. I feel protocol i read was not followed upon assistance offered by myself.

Best regards

Delete. Promotional whether paid or not, and if it was written or largely contributed to by her agent, then it is paid work. Would need a complete rewrite (WP:TNT). It's an affront to the work of thre vounteers here to have to trawl through 40 or so 'sources' to find that none of hem are relevant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---yet this was something I felt too, and tried to do, unsuccessfully. I feel this issue has touched the lives of many, as the petition references has over 13,000 signatures re the issue, the directors referenced are acclaimed, and i feel this is a poorly thought out conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 07:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) ''''Bold text' I wish to have no more part in your community if this level of professionalism and courtesy is what i can expect from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Frances[reply]

Ok, I asked a friend to "improve" as the page had invited, and it did not save his changes. This was something I felt was helpful - deleting all but very precise facts. I don't understand your view of myself as "excepted from your community", as i didn't realize you have a membership, but pls advice if a simpler, factual based page is possible as I don't see why I am considered a spammer - please define spammer, or "what makes an insider?" I never expected this nature of issue and it is difficult for me to accept without understanding. If you maintain this view, which seems petty in my opinion at best and unregulated or contrary to your guidelines, then I truly have no idea what your purpose is. I will cancel my financial support, as i no longer find this ethical. I have been in touch with your Canadian PR contact out of concern for what I feel is action unbecoming to your organization and as a journalist and broadcaster, who made honest attempts to be helpful and was treated in the manner I was, I feel I did wikipedia a service. I advice you to consider the expectation of professionalism when using language that is public if you invite trust, not alienates that is poorly explained and appears semantic based and contrary to your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs)

I wish to be clear that I did not write the entirety of content or the majority at all and this is not 'MY' page at all, and I am under no impression it is. It is information. I recently admitted to improving grammar as i would do so and was encouraged to improve. When I did examine sources, I found many more that seemed much more to what you sought, and I had not known this. It is clear they cannot be added, though I was never answered pending your initial accusation of my being a black box seo hire, a serious accusation. I truly felt I would be treated as someone politely asking to be helped or to assist. As per your labelled request for improvement, a friend offered to "improve" via fact adding as the page had invited, they claim to support this issue, and while I read that you request all contributors be unconnected, 4 years past during which you had no issues with content being added to a page that discussed me in many ways, albeit poorly - and that is a long time for such a sudden blast of accusations. This led me to wish to assist you quickly and as "human judgment is above your rules" according to your inclusionist, I wished to err on the side of being helpful, and it did not save any changes. This was something I felt was helpful to YOU noting chrissy's frustration in her public comments- deleting all but very precise facts. I wanted to be courteous. I don't understand your view of myself as "excepted from your community", as I didn't realize you have a membership, but pls advise me on how to view this community and my role now. "what makes an insider?" Are all contributors evaluated and assumed to be nefarious as rapidly as I was upon asking for help? Are their guidelines for this? I am a volunteer too, and for a cause I believe in, and I respect those who give of their gifts. I simply expect more from them as I expect them to care more than those seeking a salary alone. I never expected this nature of issue and it is difficult for me to accept without understanding. If you maintain this view, which seems petty in my opinion at best and unregulated or contrary to your guidelines, then I truly have no idea what your purpose is. I will cancel my financial support, as i no longer find this ethical. I have been in touch with your Canadian PR contact out of concern for what I feel is action unbecoming to your organization and as a journalist and broadcaster who made honest attempts to be helpful and was treated in the manner I was, I feel I did wikipedia a service to improve it. I advise you to consider an expectation of professionalism when using language that is public if you invite trust, not chatter alienates, and is poorly explained, or appears semantic based and contrary to your guidelines. I also requested options, and was given none, but I was told quite quickly I am a spammer, an outsider, (and all member surely begin at the beginning, yet this is my beginner experience after reaching out - a poor example in my opinion for other beginners) - essentially, not part of your community due to my use of an adjective - something others should possibly be warned of as they struggle to learn about what is now feeling like an exclusionary creation? I implore you to view my comments with respect as i have that for you, and am truly confused, seeking understanding. If this is the manner in which you proceed, I wish no part of the community and will stop educating myself and advise others to be cautious. I am now exhausted of this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments above I feel i show you far more consideration than you show users and wish to be exempt from this community as this is demeaning and frankly, contradictory. pls advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 07:49, 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. ansh 666 01:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourouklis Troullon[edit]

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

Does not meet notability and hasn't been expanded or updated since creation. Danbert8 (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 14:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 14:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY NZFC^(talk) 20:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? There is nothing in the link about teams. It's about players. Xaris333 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NZ Footballs Conscience: This article is not about players. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my vote, never remember even looked at this one. Must have had two pages open as I was looking at a football player one on Ouk Sovann. NZFC^(talk) 11:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many participation in C and D Division (they are national division) and many participations to Cyprus Cup (main Cup pf the country). The article is expanded. Xaris333 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet WP:FOOTYN for playing in the Cypriot Cup on at least eight separate occasions. The article and the sourcing could be better, but it appears to be notable. Jay eyem (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in national cup. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. ATZNA 14:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATZNA (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" makes no policy-based argument. Sandstein 20:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost & Found (producer)[edit]

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

Spam article. All substantive edits are by an editor with a name match for a music industry PR. Near-certain undisclosed paid editing. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't work in the music industry or in PR, I work in retail. There are several people with my name. Could you cite the source for where you found the matching name? I also haven't been paid to edit anything and have no connection to the subject. --Amy Mowatt (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not found Samat lib (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hekima University College. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hekima Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations[edit]

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

Not an independent institute but part of Hekima University College The Banner talk 13:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hekima University College. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, not independently notable. Szzuk (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Hekima University College. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington Youth Soccer Association[edit]

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

This youth soccer association appears to be insufficiently notable, based on absence of secondary coverage (declined at AfC for that reason but moved to mainspace anyway by creator). However, current consensus on sports club notability is somewhat murky to me - sports people please assess. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete yikes. Very much a WP:GNG failure. Jay eyem (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, looks very promotional! Govvy (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication this association has received significant coverage in independent sources. Fenix down (talk) 13:10, 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.

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of governed cryptocurrencies[edit]

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

A list of one notable currency does not a list make. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already listed at List of cryptocurrencies. Clearly no need for a spinout. Not opposed to a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK of List of cryptocurrencies. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Now we have more gryptocurrencies that are governed, that are top12 in coinmarkectcap, like EOS, Cardano, Iota e.t.c. Governed cryptocurrencies is a upcoming special category of cryptos, that have a budget system. Demohere (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demohere And List of cryptocurrencies exists for that. Also see this discussion regarding CoinMarket. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coins are the same. Not all metals are the same, not all stones are the same. It is very importat to mention the properties of each coin. Governance is a specific property. If you allow this property to be mentioned in the list of cryptocurrencies, then it is ok with me... Actually I will add it right now. Demohere (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I cant!!! You have locked the list_of_cryptocurrencies article!!! This is censorship. Demohere (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not locked, it is "semi-protected" against frequent spam by freshly-made accounts or IP users, you can start editing it as soon as your account will reach necessary qualification, which should only take few days and few constructive edits.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why List_of_governed_cryptocurrencies is needed. Your censorship causes that need. Demohere (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you dont trust coinmarketcap, go search to any other crypto prices site you want. All of them almost agree eachother after all. Which means that you can distinguish the notable coins, from the non notable ones. Demohere (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demohere It's not about what we as individual editors think but long established consensus about what reliable sources are. Neither of the links you've listed meet the criteria that would sufficiently support notability. You need to tone down your hostility, like your edit below as well. Please also read what Wikipedia is not and lay off the cry of censorship. If you want to write about non-notable content, get a blog. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think coinmarketcap is non notable. Neither crypto revolution is non notable. You are the non notable one. Demohere (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demohere Well then I guess it's a good thing there isn't an article about me. Why don't you stick to the discussion at hand? Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationales given above. Q ^{T C} 17:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You state in your personal page that you are taking a long break from wikipedia. What made you break your break and come here to vote for this article to be deleted? You behavior is utterly strange, and suspicious Demohere (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unwanted, needless fork of the content that exists at List of cryptocurrencies. Nick (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is correct, but you HAVE to allow a new column "governance" to be added in the List of cryptocurrencies. Demohere (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same reason as per other comments, there's already List of cryptocurrencies which can be used for same exact purpose.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used IF YOU ALLOW a governance column. So please unlock the article, so that I can add this column. Demohere (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Demohere:, I'd encourage you to avoid viewing this as a negotiation or set of demands. This discussion is focused on whether the discussed article is viable on its own. On the whole, it sounds like most of the participants in this discussion have been pretty receptive to including the information in the other article, so there's no need to raise tensions. As User:Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom pointed out, the semiprotection qualification is very lax, and you should reach autoconfirmed status in the next day or so. In the mean time, you can still view the source text and start working on a draft in your sandbox or post-the new table on the article talk page and use ((edit semi-protected)) to request someone else to make addition (as described here). MarginalCost (talk) 20:09, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitherium[edit]

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

More non-notable blockchain garbage. No coverage, no indication this meets any type of criteria. (As a side note, can we get a CSD that covers this nonsense? she says somewhat jokingly but not really) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion Diptanshu 💬 12:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable indeed. Deletion - you know it makes sense. Nick (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd rather not make a CSD crit because some of these are notable or borderline enough that consensus would be needed to determine.L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. --Sykes83 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Institute of Business Administration[edit]

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

Seems to be a part of St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai. Not an independent institute. The Banner talk 12:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent institution. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai. Orientls (talk) 09:20, 14 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 Playback (South Korean band). (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Eunjin[edit]

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

fails WP:NMG no charted solo work and has only appeared on tv as a contestant. Abdotorg (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I was about to contest the removal of the blpprod as the sources are completely unreliable too. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:GNG Snowflake91 (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playback (South Korean band). She has had a solo release (see e.g. [38], which I am not proposing as a significant source), so people may search for her on Wikipedia. Those visitors should be redirected to the group article, where her solo release can be briefly mentioned, as opposed to seeing an invitation to create a new article about her. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playback (South Korean band). --Garam (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wpgbrown (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playback (South Korean band), as is customary for band members who have not yet established individual notability. -Zanhe (talk) 04:24, 15 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmeer Amir[edit]

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

Subject has received some press coverage such as this and this but only for a single event and does not appear to meet GNG. Other than this, I could only found some passing mentions in some non-RS. Saqib (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete fails GNG and probably WP:BASIC as well Globe2trotter (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable bio. samee converse 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dubious notability with unreliable sources. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Notability issues. M A A Z T A L K 20:40, 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.

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Space Companies[edit]

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

Unreferenced arbitrary list Rathfelder (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough notable list entries for a stand-alone list. Ajf773 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since there are only three linked articles, and there's already a category Indian Space Research Organisation that all three of the linked articles belong to. Just curious - is there a site convention for how many items should exist before a list makes sense? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned above there exists Category:Aerospace companies of India which does a better job than this list page.Polyamorph (talk) 19:27, 22 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 20:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English Pellam East Godavari Mogudu[edit]

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

No reliable reviews to be found, appears to fail WP:NFILM. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Was probably created primarily for promotion, given the plagiarized plot summary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teslaquila[edit]

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

Lacks notability. This isn't even a product or a proposed product - it's a joke Musk made. Delete on grounds of a lack of notability. FirefoxLSD (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed with nom. The article may or may not deserve a (tiny) section in another article, but it certainly doesn't self-support. References are mainly about him reacting to the drop in stock price rather than the teslaquila per se. We don't have an article for every joke that gets mentioned in a couple of newspapers or we'd have thousands and thousands of them. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I CSD tagged this when it was created, but it was declined. It has no lasting notability. Natureium (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness Matters (magazine)[edit]

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

Advert of completely non notable, newly established magazine that's not even well known within the locality it is published –Ammarpad (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability criteria. The article is a stub anyway.FirefoxLSD (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a directory listing. Not notable. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 08:27, 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. Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Junoobi Punjab Suba Mahaaz[edit]

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

This newly formed movement has garnered some press coverage for some obvious reason but maybe it's too soon and not suitable to have a standalone article. So I would suggest delete per WP:NotJustYet. Also it fails GNG as of now because the movement itself not received significant coverage.. Saqib (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. samee converse 14:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Sharma[edit]

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

Received some press mentions, but this actress does not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO. To get some clue about the subject, I tried to find an entry on her in IMDb but was unable to locate it either. Saqib (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I originally redirected this page to Jamai Raja (TV series) per WP:TOOSOON but it was reverted back by the author. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and no evidence she played a major role in Darr Sabko Lagta Hai. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN Clubs Invitational Tournament[edit]

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

The tournament never took place. The article is also poorly sourced. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article about the supposed only edition of the tournament:

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of them should go - poorly referenced is actually an overstatement. As cancelled/long-term postponed events with presumably ambiguity about those non-cited details that are given, there isn't anything to them. Obviously can be re-created if and when they do take placeNosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3. Fails WP:V. I couldn't find anything online except WP mirrors and one article with the coach of Persib Bandung saying that he had never heard of this. Note also that the creator of the article is now permanently blocked, and the articles were created in November 2017 when a tournament scheduled from "October 2017 to December 2017" would have been well underway, so the two articles appear to be a simple hoax. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - tournament did not take place, main article can be restored if the tournament is resurrected at a later date and shown to pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mabl[edit]

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

Startup which fails the new WP:NCORP policy. No secondary sources. Previous was removed by SPA editor, who created account 50 minutes before the end of the Prod. scope_creep (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete concur with nom. Coverage is routine in relation to funding. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not yet notable -- references are notices about funding. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Khabar[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. There are other news portals/channels that have the word 'khabar', but nothing notable on this subject. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of mention on Google books. Capitals00 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was a suggestion to merge, and normally I'd be inclined to go that way per WP:ATD, but given the total lack of sources here, that's a non-starter. If anybody really wants to mine this for content to merge (and research sources for), I'll be happy to userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of park and rides in Gatineau[edit]

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

None of the park and rides listed are notable. The only source is an external link from the transit company website (in French). Also fails WP:NOTTRAVEL given it is a guide on which buses connect to which park & ride Ajf773 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does seem to be a WP:NOT issue here, and I can't find precedent for this sort of topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically there's no reason why a notable set of park and ride schemes in a city shouldn't be covered by a summary article - see for instance some of the ones in Category:Park and ride schemes in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately the article here does nothing to suggest that they are notable (although it would be surprising if some references didn't exist given the size of the scheme). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:D0:8E0A:9422:4740:DE99:A218 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted by the IP this theoretically could be turnt into a category however that's above my paygrade but don't have an objections to anyone else doing this, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short summary to a section at Société de transport de l'Outaouais. A list of the sites and a paragraph (based on the introduction to the list) is encyclopaedic and the sources being in French is irrelevant, but I don't see enough encyclopedic information at the moment for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations Global Network[edit]

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

The article is currently sourced to the company's website, corporate filings, and press releases. BEFORE searches with PR agencies are always problematic as they return a huge number of results, however, diving deep into these they are almost exclusively contact lines in press releases for the company's clients, or completely incidental mentions such as staff members being quoted and then referenced by employer. Chetsford (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 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 06:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with this nomination. There doesn't appear to be a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 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. Sandstein 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederica Mathewes-Green[edit]

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

Article relies too much on primary sources and there's not a single coverage of her from independent sources (i.e nonreligious publications) that could establish her notability. Slightlymad 03:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - not many ghits. Doesn't seem notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a Media section to the article outlining some of her contributions. She has been someone the media has consistently consulted for many years. GeorgeofOrange (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frederica Mathewes-Green has been a leading writer in the national forum, on topics related to Eastern Orthodox belief and practice for many years. AmityNook (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article could be improved some more (maybe trimmed?), but she does have coverage in independent sources and meets WP:GNG, so I think the case for keeping is sufficiently met.[39][40][41] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 3 sources, I cannot open the first, which is in the group blog Patheos, but the 2nd is letter-to-the-editor referencing an article written by Mathewes-Green; and the 3rd is a book that quotes something she once wrote. None of these supports notability. At this point, I'm not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as an author. Most of the remainder of the article is fluff, especially the media section, and if the article is kept, I will remove it. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 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. Sandstein 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coach convertible[edit]

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

"Coach convertible" is not an accepted term for automobiles, and the article's subject of aftermarket cabriolet conversions in the United States does not seem encyclopaedic. 1292simon (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - doesn't seem to comply with GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Coach convertible' just means it is a vehicle modified by into a convertible by a coach work company instead of the original vehicle manufacturer. We can come up with a different title is that is your only complaint. The information is predominantly US because the original editor is from the US. However, he put in 'Conversions for the Australian market' and 'Conversions for the European market' as recognition that other countries do it too, even if he doesn't have that information himself. The way to deal with this is to add information, not delete what is already there. Why do you think it doesn't comply with WP:GNG ? (Would have been easier if you linked to the guideline instead of making me go search for it.) He supplied secondary references to books on the subject. Stepho talk 03:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Book hits, when not irrelevant or cribbed from us, point back to a once-off vehicle from Fageol back around 1950 which could be converted back and forth between a cargo truck and a bus. I gather it was not a success. This seems to be one person's made-up word, and it's not even clear that there were significant numbers of convertible conversions. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any non-american reader would expect to read about coaches with no roofs (ie this (Although one could say the picture is a bus and not a coach) ..... - Point is the title is very misleading, Title aside I'm not finding any sort of evidence of notability at all, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 15 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise1st[edit]

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

Bog-standard travel agency/cruise seller. No real sources other standard business notices and warmed-over press releases. Calton | Talk 02:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quick check of Google, not much on this - no independent references - doesn't seem notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:53, 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 06:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a relatively small travel agency advertising their wares, refs and google not showing notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 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. Sandstein 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Kannada-language media[edit]

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

Listcruft.. There is no good reason showing why such a list is worthwhile. Saqib (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article(Link) also exists for Tamil Nadu state. Its a collective information of all media categories. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Saqib (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 03:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is listcruft, the article creator would be advised to find the best way of organising the information; for example - create categories, put the information in a new prose section or use "see also" wikilinks. Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Gage[edit]

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

No notability proven Makro (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has had some promotional editing, but I have added enough for it to easily pass WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 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 06:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think he's sneaking over the line for gng with the added refs. Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Krassenstein[edit]

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

Lacking depth-of-coverage from reliable source. Claims to fame amount to owning a few non-notable web forums and having a few of his tweets mentioned in articles about Donald Trump. The only source that seems to meet the depth part of notability is the Medium (website) article, which as (essentially) a blog host rarely would meet WP:RS criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Patience, Slightlymad 05:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS report on anything other than tweets. wumbolo ^^^ 08:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note As the creator of this article, I'm really hoping that this article be rescued. I really am. I'm hoping we all work together to fix the article and hopefully to keep it as well. Regarding the tweets Ed posts, it's mentioned in the articles. However, as I said, we can all work together to rescue the article and hopefully keep it. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User draft I went to the Teahouse recently and the person who responded to my question suggests this should be moved to User:LovelyGirl7/Draft/Ed Krassenstein. I believe this should be moved to the draft because I am interested in working on it more. If you can move it to User:LovelyGirl7/Draft/Ed Krassenstein and delete Ed Krassenstein I would appreciate it. Than whenever I find reliable sources, it can be moved back to “Ed Krassenstein” again. Thanks —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that's the route you're going, please be aware of these policies. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4._Recreation_of_a_page_that_was_deleted_per_a_deletion_discussion and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Undeletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: I've seen the rules. I'm familiar with them. I'm okay with moving it to the draft so I can work on it more. --LovelyGirl7 talk 04:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are a handful of RS they are of the most incidental variety, mentioning the subject in passing. Overall, this fails the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have no objection to this being userfied to LovelyGirl7's draftspace, but as it stands, this just seems like yet another Internet wannabe blowhard with a threadbare claim to notability. Ravenswing 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: Are you calling me a Internet wannabe blowhard or are you calling Ed Krassenstein a Internet wannabe blowhard? --LovelyGirl7 talk 17:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Ravenswing is referring to Krassentein. It's hard to understand why anyone would think he was notable. Do you have any personal or professional connections to Krassenstein, per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling him one, obviously; he's the subject of the AfD, after all. I'd be hard pressed to imagine why the comment could be directed to you, so like Ohnoitsjamie, I'm now curious as to whether there's a COI in play. Ravenswing 20:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: he is one, especially with his anti-Trump tweets and stalking him on each tweet. —LovelyGirl7 talk 20:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Since I’m familiar with the rules, is it okay if I create a new draft and copy what’s in the article into my draft? That way I can work on it and do reliable sources on it. —LovelyGirl7 talk 20:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LovelyGirl7: Can you please address the COI question, specifically, do you have any personal or professional connections to Krassenstein per the aforementioned policy? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: I have no connections to Ed or Brian. I don’t have social media or follow them, but I do research them. I’ve heard people tell me these 2 are frauds and that they stalk Trump on Twitter each day. —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article is becoming a target of repeated vandalism. I’ve seen several IPs vandalize the article when it shouldn’t. With that said, I say speedy delete it as “G7: one author who requested deletion”. I can create a new draft (1-2 months from now maybe) of the article, but I’d like to also copy what’s in the new draft (if I create one) so me and some editors can work on this together to finally make it notable this time. I’m familiar with Wikipedia’s deletion policies. With that said, the article can be speedy deleted. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The last sentence of this article is completely incorrect and fabricated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.61.132.169 (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I will admit, the article isn’t notable. With that said, feel free to close speedy delete the article as “one author who requested deletion” or as “A7: doesn’t indicate importance” if you wish. I believe it’s no longer needed and I will admit there’s no reason for a internet Trump stalker like him to have his own article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:31, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReFUEL4[edit]

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

Not a notable company; doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a lot of press releases and quasi-press releases on venture capital marketing sites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, not to mention qualifies for WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Miller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not proven. References are dead. Makro (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 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 03:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe weak-ish...). In cases like these, I check Variety, THR, and Deadline to see if there are non-zero mentions – Logan Miller actually gets multiple "hits" from just these three press outlets. He headlined the Disney XD series I'm in the Band, and seems to have gotten some "heat" for Love, Simon and the upcoming The Maze (2018 film). (There's also significant roles in Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse and Before I Fall (film).) Considering all of this, and the fact that he's a still-working actor likely to accrue more credits, I think he nominally meets WP:NACTOR. All that said, the article could sure use some of that available sourcing from Variety, THR, and Deadline, etc... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 14 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)} 21:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What About Your Friends: Weekend Getaway[edit]

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

The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. While trying to do research on this to make this into a potential project, I could not find enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to support this film having its own separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoba47 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 April 2018(UTC)

Delete: does not appear to pass WP:NFO; the only sources I can find merely mention the film in passing as part of a biography of Keshia Knight Pulliam. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment! Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laudamotion destinations[edit]

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

List of planned airline destinations. Redirected to main article but was reverted. This is a directory of miscellaneous business information that belongs on the company website, and not in an encyclopedia. GMG ^talk 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly every airline has a destination page so whats the difference here, the page is not a list of 'planned' destinations some of them are already in operation. There is no reason for it to be deleted it is no different to any other destinations page. CBG17 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if those are similarly just a reformatting of content from the company's website, most of which is speculative at this point, then what content can be well sourced and is essential to an understanding of the company should be incorporated into the main articles for those companies. What passes for secondary sources here are things like this which are essentially just window dressing, and are overtly promotional uncritical reprinting of corporate PR, with gems like great news for Austrian consumers and visitors, who can now book low fare flights and benefit from genuine competition and more choice. If we removed everything that doesn't even pretend to be independently sourced, we're left with almost nothing. If we remove everything that isn't speculative (even if it was supported by secondary sources), we'd be left with about a half dozen, and all as a spin-off from an article that has less than 400 words to its name. GMG ^talk 13:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 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 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per community consensus: [42]. Basically there is no compelling reasons for keep in this instance that outweighs the views of the Wikipedia community. Ajf773 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. I thought we had had that discussion, but when I looked all I found was a more generic discussion about transportation articles. GMG ^talk 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That supposed consensus was overturned when it was attempted to be acted upon; see here. I personally have issues with these articles, but it seems to me that the only argument here is that the airline does not yet actually fly. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like "the community doesn't much care for it, but also isn't much for mass deletions". At any rate, even if we were talking about an uncontroversially accepted type of stand alone list (and we certainly aren't given past discussion), it's still general practice that when a list acts as a companion for only one main article, the default is more-or-less that you should need some reason to spin them off. If the only thing we can spin off is a mostly speculative directory based on the official website and thinly veiled advertisements, the correct course of action to my mind is 1) find better sources, 2) incorporate it in the main article as prose if possible, and 3) incorporate it as an embedded list if you can't. GMG ^talk 12:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the second discussion regarding the bundling of all 444 airline destination articles. In any case the right place is to bring them up to AfD, and in this case this one warrants deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeletevIf this is created by b o r i n g guy CBG17, then delete. In fact in Italian and Portuguese versions of wiki, destination of airports and airlines are not necessary because differ in a daily basis. --92.76.27.83 (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general I support articles on airline destinations, but this particular one is too speculative and promotional. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 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 Moot. Hmmm, due to an apparent misunderstanding, when I recently closed WP:Articles for deletion/The John Birch Conspiracy Theory, I included Faction (Botch album) in the consensus. Fortunately, it looks like the discussion here is pretty much the same as the discussion there, so I'm going to close this as moot. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faction (Botch album)[edit]

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

Majority of existing sources in the article fail WP:RS and WP:ALBUM/SOURCE criteria, particularly Discogs and Rateyourmusic, which both feature largely or entirely user-generated content. Due to this lack of significant coverage from reliable sources, the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM notability criteria. On a personal note, I spent a year researching the artist of this album to expand their Wikipedia page and do not believe it could ever be expanded beyond a stub-class article. My attempt to redirect was contested, so I am taking it to AFD. I have also nominated The John Birch Conspiracy Theory for deletion for similar reasons. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 08:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this, plus several other articles, to a Botch discography. See the other AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with creating an article for Botch's discography; however, I do not believe this page should be deleted. A discography page would not be suitable for some information that a page dedicated to the actual album/EP would contain. More information could become available, with better sources, at a future date. The article should remain, unless it becomes stagnant for a long period of time. Jericho735 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Botch (band)#Discography , merge or create a new discography spin out at discretion, refs in the article are listings etc and nothing on google. Szzuk (talk) 08:47, 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 merge to Botch (band)#Discography. I'm closing this as merge because that's what the automation makes easy to do. The real consensus here is that these two album articles should not stay as stand-alone articles. There's no real consensus on whether they should be merged into the parent band article, or into Botch discography (which as of this writing is a redirect to the band). Those details can be worked out on the article talk pages as normal editorial consensus building without need for further AfD involvement. Whatever happens, leave these two titles as redirects. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The John Birch Conspiracy Theory[edit]

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

Majority of existing sources in the article fail WP:RS and WP:ALBUM/SOURCE criteria, particularly Discogs and Rateyourmusic, which both feature largely or entirely user-generated content. Due to this lack of significant coverage from reliable sources, the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM notability criteria. On a personal note, I spent a year researching the artist of this album to expand their Wikipedia page and do not believe it could ever be expanded beyond a stub-class article. My attempt to redirect was contested, so I am taking it to AFD. I have also nominated Faction (Botch album) for deletion for similar reasons. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Adding this so the automation script can find it. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's no question at all that the band, Botch, is notable. So the question is how to deal with the permastub information about its EPs and other miscellaneous releases. This band has two studio albums, three EPs, two compilation albums, a live album, a box set, a number of split albums with other bands, and one-off appearances on several other albums. That's a lot of potential information, and it makes the discography section of the band article already something of a gangly mess. Accordingly (as suggested by WP:NALBUM as well), I suggest a merger of content from the two articles nominated here (and the other release articles, likely) into a centralized Botch discography (redlinked at the time I write this). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with creating an article for Botch's discography; however, I do not believe this page should be deleted. A discography page would not be suitable for some information that a page dedicated to the actual album/EP would contain. More information could become available, with better sources, at a future date. The article should remain, unless it becomes stagnant for a long period of time. Jericho735 (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 22 year old demo released by a long-since defunct label recorded by an underground hardcore band that disbanded 16 years ago. The likelihood of more information randomly becoming available in the future is so minuscule it's not even worth bringing up. Please see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Botch (band)#Discography , merge or create a new discography spin out at discretion, refs in the article are listings etc and nothing on google. Szzuk (talk) 08:32, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Lakhan (2016 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources beyond passing mention and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 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 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established, there is mention in the timesofindia entertainment section but I don't think it is enough, google returning little, no imdb page, I considered a redirect to Ram Lakhan, it appears to be a comedy remake of the original drama, but I don't know if that would be a good redirect or not. Szzuk (talk) 08:21, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Dragon Ball Super film[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if principal photography (or the equivalent stage for animation) has itself been notable. This article says nothing about notability of production. It is therefore essentially a promotion of the upcoming movie. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. No independent RS report that production on the film has begun; the plan could just be rumours. Patience, Slightlymad 09:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regis Dale[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable as such, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only media coverage I find via Google and Google News Archive are perfunctory "Harvest Global announces they hired a CEO" treatments and nothing about him beyond that. Nothing on HighBeam. Largoplazo (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established by the refs or via google, he's an asset manager who doesn't have a noticeable profile just work related list entries. Szzuk (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence of notability--this is just a directory listing . DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolicity[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTSPAM: all of the coverage is either about a report that the consultancy made, and is actually about geopolitics in a region with trivial coverage of the organization itself, or it is coverage of the founders and executives (or written by them). WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND are not met. Additionally, appears to be undeclared paid editing created in violation of our terms of use. It's native advertising, and we can delete on those grounds alone. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing nothing encyclopaedic or notable, and the passages are written in such a way as to promote Geopolicity. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional and not notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pertout[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Searches do not turn up anything which shows they pass WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests they pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG or MUSICBIO. MarnetteD|Talk 03:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with the other editors. Does not pass GNG at all. Globe2trotter (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above reasons. Freikorp (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is the subject of numerous non-trival published works, has released at least two albums under his own name, and three others as one half of the duo Alex & Nilusha. He has toured Australia and internationally both as a solo artist and as a member of numerous ensembles. Consequently passes WP:MUSICBIO. The article certainly has problems: I've put a WP:COI template on it: it suffers from both non-neutral tone and original research. Whole sections are difficult to read, comprising of WP:Laundry lists. These are reasons to carefully edit the article but not to delete it. If this passes AfD I will continue to edit it and attempt to get it into a more acceptable form. However, I might need help if the article's creator continues disruptive editing.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The keep vote by User:Shaidar cuebiyar above makes valid points, but the "numerous non-trival published works" are primarily about things outside of Pertout's individual works, such as events in which he was a participant, or his later act Alex & Nilusha which has its own article. As an individual, almost all available sources mention him peripherally as being present at a recording or concert. Meanwhile, some apparently useful sources already in the article do not mention him at all, such as "La Nueva Canción: The New Song Movement in South America" (currently footnote #3) which actually describes a larger scene that he may or may not fit into. I can find no reliable and non-trivial reviews for his own albums except for a couple about his 1993 album. He has a lot of listings, but those sources are almost never about him in a fashion that bestows independent notability. He's an accomplished journeyman who deserves to be mentioned in other people's articles, but there is not enough for an article about him specifically. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:49, 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 no consensus. No more comments after a (2nd) relist, so I'm no consensusing this one. Only the nom is pro-deletion. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Television[edit]

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

An unsourced article about a former public access station that is now only available on the internet. The person who deproded this claimed that he found plenty of sources by doing a Google search, but I can't find anything except for the school newspaper and the school's website. Rusf10 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a series of AfDs on public television stations by this Nom. Rusf10, I repeat the question that I haveasked before, do you know how to run new archive searches or have access to a news archive? I ask again because, like several other stations tha twe have kept, this one was a bigger deal back a decade or two ago. There were stories like [UWTV creates static] 2002 Puget Sound Business Journal, about for-profit stations accusing UWTV of unfair competition because it used publicly funded equipment to compete for content production contracts. there were other stories on that conflict. And quite a lot of regional coverage of the station's programs, feature stories like " UWTV brings Islam home to Seattle," "NOW YOU CAN TURN TO TV FOR HELP WITH THE INTERNET, and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There still are only two sources both of them local. This is an organization, so WP:AUD is applicable here, but even under WP:GNG, two sources is not enough. Why don't I ask you a question? Do you do anything else here except for stalk me? Because looking at your recent edit history, it seems like you just follow me around and do little else.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I edit at a lot of AfDs, and spend a lot of time improving content on articles at AfD. But, yes, I have noticed that you nominate a lot of articles on topics like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanesville Heritage Weekend, and Princeton Community Television, institutions that have been around for decades and with pages that need improvement. You may have forgotten this suggestion I left on your talk page back in January, [43], in a sectoin wehre other editors had make similar suggestions: "*I advise you to slow down on nominating article for deletions. I just came upon Reformed Church of Highland Park at AfD. The article was strongly sourced when you nominated it. But you have continued to argue with the editors iVoting Keep in ways that indicate that you need to become more familiar with standards of notability. For example, you argue that "Even if the minister was a notable person, it still doesn't transfer to the church.",[44] but a notable minister does contribute to notability. Similarly with your argument about the building, [45], secondary, WP:RS discussing a church's building do contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 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, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per User:E.M.Gregory. Contra to nom's claims, two sources is plenty to meet GNG. And it's extraordinarily disingenuous to dismiss these sources as "local." The University of Washington is in Seattle. Seattle's CSA has a population of 4.5 million people. This is bigger than many sovereign nations. It's roughly the size of Ireland. Will nominator proceed to dismiss all sources from Ireland as "local" and therefore not useful for establishing notability? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not disingenuous! Did you even look at the articles? For example [46] What does it say above the title of the article? "Local News" Yes, the Seattle Times has a local section for their local audience. It is not the same as if the story had appeared on the Front Page. Stories labeled as "local news" do not meet WP:AUD. Besides the fact that comparing a country to a city is an apples to oranges comparison for many reasons, the comparison to Ireland is actually is far more disingenuous than anything else in this entire discussion (in fact its pretty much a outright lie), for the fact that Ireland has roughly twice the population of the Seattle metro area.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Republic of Ireland has a population of 4,761,865 at the 2016 census. The Seattle CSA has a population of 4,459,677. You're the one that brought the metro area into it, but even on your terms the metro area has a population of 3,733,580, which is nothing like half the population of Ireland. Now, I agree that the sources appeared in the "local" section. My point is that if you have a CSA of 4.7 million people, "local" has a very different meaning than it does in e.g. East Jesus, Tennessee. There are as many people in Seattle's local area as there are in many major world countries, like Ireland. Dismissing news because it's local to Seattle is like dismissing news because it's local to Ireland. It's not reasonable. Furthermore, the very guideline you're relying on, WP:AUD, contradicts you, as it says explicitly that "regional" news can be used to establish notability. News that's labeled "local" in an area of 4.7 million people is regional or national most places in the world. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:55, 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 02:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sanam Teri Kasam (2016 film)#Soundtrack. Sandstein 20:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kheech Meri Photo[edit]

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

Does not appear to be enough notability for just this song. Should be merged to main film article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the refs are ok, and it probably passes nmusic, but it is hard to tell without any kind of chart related material. Szzuk (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of how this song is particularly notable (chart performance, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The songs seems to be a chart buster number in India here’s one of the ref [47] And the song also passes nmusic. HeyLetgoletgo (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how that ref would meet WP:RS guidelines, and it doesn't mention any specific charts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanam Teri Kasam (2016 film). samee converse 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sanam_Teri_Kasam_(2016_film)#Soundtrack –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Fishing (Second Person song)[edit]

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

Another one of these COI created promo pages full of fancruft for a non notable song. Rayman60 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Leaf Clover (Second Person song). Delete this one for the same reasons. The article was created as a place for non-notable fan trivia, but the song has received no notice as an entity in its own right. The article for the associated album is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Their band deserves deletion for the exact same reasons - No evidence of any notability, Fails SONG & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 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.