< 14 April	16 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) 00:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Grove Shopping Plaza[edit]

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

One of probably millions of shopping plazas in the United States that isn't notable. Having a list of stores is irrelevant and there is no coverage of this place. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Devoid of any significant coverage. Septrillion (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. See above. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 00:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A7 may need to be expanded to cover locations. Septrillion (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references are provided, let alone any authoritative references, to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable strip mall. Nothing really special about it that warrants an article. Dough4872 01:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Potential A7. Ajf773 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, A7 does not apply to places, and i would oppose expanding it. But any change would need to be proposed on WT:CSD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability provided. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not demonstrate evidence of notability DocumentError (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as referenced. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 23:52, 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 speedy delete. obvious spam for non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City News (Bangladesh)[edit]

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

Non-notable online news site, fails WP:WEB. there is not anything about it besides its website online. Found nothing in Bengali also. আফতাব (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-promotional brochure.--Rpclod (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 and G11. Septrillion (talk) 02:26, 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 speedy delete. WP:A7. Nominators should read WP:CIVIL. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc West[edit]

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

Since I don't feel like fighting with two SPA's over an utterly non-notable artist, who's apparent claim to significance is "is signed to a label" (no mention of which label and no evidence to support anything, much less) let's send it to AfD and be rid of it for good. No coverage, no anything that would remotely come close to being even questionably notable. Created by an SPA who is now socking. Fails literally everything on WP. It's a good thing that WP doesn't take into account social media following, cause if we did, well let's just say a whopping 4000 insta followers and a private FB would not a notable person make. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom (and WP:A7). Salt-lock if required. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references are provided, let alone any authoritative references, to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:A7 Septrillion (talk) 02:29, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Hamidi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Septrillion (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 23:53, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashed Al-Rabah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. The single reference is a dead link. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Septrillion (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayee Mohanna[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Both references are dead links. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 22:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Septrillion (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet NHOOPS requirements, nor general notability DocumentError (talk) 15:22, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheelagh McLaren[edit]

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

Non notable, doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. I couldn't find any RS about her. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 22:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Septrillion (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah AlSaeid[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Also nominating the article below as it fails WP:NBASKETBALL and was created by the same editor.[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Insufficient referencing. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 22:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Septrillion (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both neither meets our very low notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 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 redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Madison Project[edit]

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

Article only references the subject's own site and the school's listing of the subject, falling quite short of the notability requirements. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of collegiate a cappella groups non-notable a-cappella group, not even mentioned on the JMU article. General searches point mostly to the Madison Initiative, which is a project to raise tuition at University of Wisconsin per Carolyn Martin. If it can't survive on the collegiate list then Delete AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I also support a redirect as stated above. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as above. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 23:58, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miwha Han[edit]

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

I fail to see any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Subject's own gallery, flickr and etsy do nothing to establish notability. I also don't see anything that would make the subject notable under WP:ARTIST, no collections, museum retrospectives or monographic catalogues. Vexations (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to establish notability. Nothing found in searches to ass to existing.104.163.140.141 (talk) 02:42, 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 keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Carr[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NBASKETBALL as he played in the ABA League (then known as the NLB League for sponsorship reasons) in 2006 as a member of Geoplin Slovan per this. Dammit_steve (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dammit steve, as he appears to meet the WP:NBASKETBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NBASKETBALL per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time that we accept super short times in even the most obrder-line of "Fully professional leagues" as giving default notability. The sports notability criteria are clearly wrong if someone as marginal as Carr is found to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep playing at an international and professional level for this long there should be plenty of sources. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KingAndGod 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yotsapon Teangdar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined due to the amount of time passed since the last afd. However, nothing has significantly changed in the interim. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While he has been a bench warmer for Buriram United in the Thai league, the player has made one appearance in the 2016 AFC Champions League against Shandong Luneng per web archive link of the AFC website and soccerway. So meets requirements for WP:NFOOTY Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.. NZFC^(talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NZFC^(talk). ATZNA 22:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Septrillion (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the third time now that I've had to correct Sir Sputnik's erroneous assertion that the subject "has not played in a fully pro league". It was established in the first AfD in 2013 that the subject satisfies WP:NFOOTY. The delete result of that discussion was instead due to failure to meet the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fourfourtwo.com has profiled him here and here. Haven't found other in-depth sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has made an appearance at the 2016 AFC Champions League, which is clearly a professional league and passes WP:NFOOTY. However I must say that despite there being a good amount of text, I do not see much to establish WP:GNG in the article, so if in 5 or 10 years this player has made no further appearances I would not mind it being renominated. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:07, 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 keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOTSTATS. 46.211.110.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Keep The introduction of the article clearly explains the premise of the article. At WP:NOTSTATS it specifically quotes "Wikipedia articles should not be...Excessive listings of UNEXPLAINED statistics". The statistics are clearly explained and therefore WP:NOTSTATS does not apply. Andygray110 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTSTATS says that statistics should have explanatory text to provide context, and that if an article has a large quantity of statistics then they should be split off into a standalone article. This is a standalone article consisting of statistics with explanatory text. WP:NOTSTATS certainly doesn't say that we can't have articles which consist overwhelmingly of statistics. Hut 8.5 21:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTSTATS doesn't apply here. Septrillion (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the above. Nigej (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the above. I would like to add that in my opinion, the request for deletion is so obviously uncalled for and so ill-timed (start of the world championship is possibly the time of year this article gets accessed the most), it is bordering on vandalism. I call for speedy keep unless anyone comes forward with arguments in favour of deletion in the next, say, 24 hours. I will not apply speedy keep myself because that would be against WP:NACD. Per89 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am involved in these articles so I am going to refrain from voting, but it needs to be noted that this article is part of a family of articles (see ((Snooker world rankings)) for a full list) so the nomination needs to be considered in that context. It is also worth noting that this nomination appears to be a "revenge" nomination resulting from Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTSTATS isn't even remotely close here. WP:SNOW should be in effect here Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTSTATS I don't understand why this page should be deleted. It's the better mode to know the year's results and how the ranking could change after every revision. It's a very neccessary page... Villamelano ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth rock[edit]

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

Article about a "genre" of music which isn't really a genre -- the only commonality here is that a bunch of rock musicians happen to live in the same community, without actually belonging to any distinctly Dartmouthian genre of music defined by where they happen to live. And the sources here aren't supporting that "Dartmouth rock" is an actual thing, either -- all any of them support is the purely geographic statement that the subject of that source lives in Dartmouth, and none of them say anything about their subject (or any of the others) belonging to a shared "genre" distinct from standard Canadian indie rock. ("Influenced by Myles Goodwin of April Wine"? Great, that makes you different from every other power pop band across Canada how, exactly?) This simply is not a real thing. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete book hits are for a hazard to navigation; web hits seem to be msotly of a specific a capella chrous. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. As the nominator says, this supposed music genre doesn't actually exist, and nowhere is the term "Dartmouth rock" used in any article online. All we have is simply a number of musicians whose common link is that they are from Dartmouth... none of the sources make any attempt to link them to a local scene, or put a name to that scene, or that the said artists even know each other. The article was created by Colin Hines, who not only cites himself as one of the four sources, but also has his own blog promoting the local music scene. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Generation Movement (Kurdistan)[edit]

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

Article is about a political party formed within the last 12 months with no elected officeholders. Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Chetsford (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Septrillion (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kurdistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom probably should have WP:PRODded first. Septrillion (talk) 22:24, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon R. Taylor[edit]

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

Reason Simtaylor (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC) I am the subject of the Wikipedia article Simon R. Taylor and believe the article should be taken down entirely.[reply]

I’m afraid that none of the impressive BBC references exist. The only legitimate links are to my own website, an article in the local press, and a few reviewers of my two self-published books.

Some of the revisions are quite defamatory and distressing. I don’t believe that I meet Wikipedia’s test of notability, and on that basis I would request that the page is removed

Comment: There has been discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Simon R Taylor and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive262#Simon R. Taylor. The article was PRODed here by @Afriendlyeditor: (not highly active), for lack of notability. @Atlantic306: deproded. The main thrust of this debate seems to me to be the veracity of the BBC interview - which I do not believe to be verifiable. Then it falls to the GNG requirement of coverage in multiple significant mentions reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This seems borderline without the BBC to me. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Article subject here): With the exception of one small piece in the local press, the remaining sources are a couple of book reviews by fairly generic book-review bloggers, and my own website. I'm not sure that non-famous book review blogs count as reliable secondary sources. I'd love to be more famous with my next one :) but as it stands this page is mostly a tool to make flippant or hurtful comments. Simtaylor (talk) 18:21, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found a schedule for the day in question on BBC Radio 4. In my judgement, the BBC source is Invalid, as I find no mention of the purported speaker nor the programme.^[1] Hence, I do not believe WP:verifiability is satisfied. I'm leaning delete as a consequence. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "BBC Radio 4 FM - Schedules, Saturday 23 July 2011". BBC.

Delete as if that source is fake it calls into question the rest of the article, also World Cat shows that two of his books are only held in 3 and 4 libraries respectively. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G11, A7 or A11 - pick one, they probably all work in this case. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G11 WP:A7 Septrillion (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article does not qualify for speedy deletion in any way. It is not unambiguous promotion, and a review of his work in a newspaper that covers the whole of Scotland (the Daily Record is more than "local press") is a clear indication of importance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Mind you, the DR is very much a tabloid, of a similar vintage to The Sun or the Daily Mirror, so I wouldn't like to give it undue weight. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it doesn't qualify as a speedy delete. I removed the promotional citations that were sourced to his own website and self-published books. The BLP even says he's not notable and agrees the article should be deleted. After I removed the self-sources, we are left with 2 questionable sources that support a promotional article about this person who wants to sell his self-published books. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is only appropriate in completely uncontroversial cases, which this is not. It does not look overtly promotional to me. Also, he didn't publish the book himself - it was Bluebox, an independent publisher. Why not just let the AfD run its course? (I'm certainly leaning delete.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it was self-published - see the Companies House Register for Bluebox Publishing (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC379407/officers) which shows the only director was the book's author (me). Also, while the newspaper article is on the Daily Record's website, it was published in print by the Paisley Daily Express; the local paper. Daily Record since bought that paper and all PDE articles are now the DR website. Simtaylor (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. I was misled by the quote from Bluebox in the Daily Record. (Who'd have thought a tabloid article could be misleading?).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scandal! I mean, you could all buy my book and pass it round make me notable if you want. You'll love it! (Jokes...) Simtaylor (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's jokes you want, pay a visit to the museums at User:EEng and if that floats your boat, stay around and write a few articles on really notable people for us. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second that nomination, Simtaylor! Find a comfy chair first. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and I cannot find enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything substantial in sources, so I think a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE trumps everything. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:BASIC. My searches fail to find SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC) enou[reply]
Delete doesn't really rise above the level of promotion or gossip. Also apparent subject has requested deletion. One of the removed parts said that he is "notoriously private" and this seems to have resulted in a lack of coverage.--Auric talk 22:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although the speedy didn't apply, WP:SNOW + BLPREQUEST makes a good case against keeping this open much longer. Anyone, anyone...? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Delete, of course :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the arguments outlined above would support deletion. Dunarc (talk) 19:18, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Building Division[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a municipal government division. Something like this is not automatically entitled to its own standalone article just because it exists -- it needs to be properly referenced to enough reliable source coverage about it to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH, but the only "reference" shown here is its own self-published staff directory, not reliable or notability-assisting third party coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My bad, I hadn't realized the criteria necessary for organization pages. To be frank the City of Toronto page has several divisions in the Divisions section that sourced self-published material such as the Toronto Transportation Services page, so I assumed a city that large was considered automatically reputable. In any case, I concede deletion, and would suggest reviewing some of those other divisional pages as well. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.84.191 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is true, some of the others may not be warranted either. On a spin through some of them, I've identified that they're very nearly all problematic articles — so I've nominated a batch for AFD discussion, but I haven't tackled them all yet. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to City of Toronto.Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxologist[edit]

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

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

Unsourced WP:DICDEF of a corporate-jargon neologism. As always, every new word that gets created does not automatically warrant an encyclopedia article -- you need to be able to reference it to reliable sources that demonstrate that it's been analyzed as a thing, not just to its own creator using it or to blogs. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Per Barbara (WVS)'s comment below, I've added tax technologist to this discussion. It's also a garbage-sourced DICDEF of a different term for the same concept as a "taxologist", not a well-substanced or well-sourced encyclopedia article about a concept. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a neologism per Bearcat. Barbara ✐ ✉ 07:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a closely related article Tax technologist, referenced only by two substandard sources should also be considered for deletion. Barbara ✐ ✉ 07:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added it to this discussion, because it suffers from the same problems. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abar Basanta Bilap[edit]

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

The contents of the article have no coherence with the title and neither does it match with the text in the cited reference. Diptanshu 💬 17:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Nom gives no valid reason for deletion. Furthermore, this film clearly satisfies the GNG. See Times of India article already cited, and a bunch more articles from RS, including more from Times of India: [1], [2], ~~[3], [4]~~. Another failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52:: Have you even checked the links you have posted? Turns out that the latter two have no relevance to the movie in question. Diptanshu 💬 17:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I'm not sure how that happened. Thanks for pointing it out. Anyway, two is enough for the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I had proposed the deletion, it is no longer relevant now since the structure of the article has been improved for good and now there is at least some coherence to the article. The mentioned references (see above) can be added to the article and I myself would do it soon. Diptanshu 💬 17:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, but the purpose of AfD is not to get people to clean up an article. Before you nominate you're responsible for checking for the existence of sources. See WP:BEFORE. If there are good sources, no matter how lousy the article is, it's not a candidate for deletion. Also see WP:DINC. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about cleanup. The article had no coherence to the topic when the deletion was proposed. Diptanshu 💬 17:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NPOL shown to be not met. No other notability criteria was presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gordon Rogers[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person who has potentially valid notability claims that might get him a Wikipedia article if he could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for them, but none that would exempt him from having to be much better referenced than this is. The only "references" being cited here are his routine wedding announcement in the local newspaper and a primary source directory entry, and there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media being shown at all. Nothing stated in this article confers an automatic notability freebie just because he existed, however -- and there's a deep level of completely unsourced personal life detail here (the names of his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, etc.) that (a) is entirely irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof, (b) violates WP:BLPNAME, under which the names of non-notable relatives may not be included in an article at all if they aren't supported by reliable sources, and (c) makes it completely unsurprising that the creator's username matches the name of one of the subject's daughters, in violation of our conflict of interest rule against starting articles about your own relatives. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find much stronger evidence that he actually clears our notability and sourceability standards, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to keep an article that's referenced this poorly, and his own family don't get to put him here themselves regardless of his notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets WP:NPOL #1 as the holder of a national office, namely former Comptroller General of Canada. His term ended in 1984, making it unlikely that most RS will be online. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL #1 extends "national office" status to legislative offices, i.e. the House of Commons and the Senate, not to civil service positions like "comptroller general" — even Canada's current comptroller general does not have a Wikipedia article, and isn't likely to get one since he's not the subject of any significant press coverage in his own right and the role itself isn't an automatic NPOL pass. And it doesn't matter if the sources are online or not, but it does matter whether reliable sources are shown or not. I ran a database search for older media coverage, in fact, and found a decent number of glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, but not a lot of coverage about him for the purposes of establishing that he would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think NPOL extends only to legislative offices and not to civil offices? I think you just made that up. It seems unlikely that the policy would specifically include members of the legislature in the second clause if the first clause only applied to legislative officers. Such an interpretation would violate the rule against surplusage. And as you probably know well, whether or not Canada's current comptroller general has an article is completely irrelevant. NPOL says that he/she could have an article, it's just that no one's written it yet. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "make stuff up". For starters, I've been contributing here for well over a decade, and was personally involved in a lot of the discussions that created our inclusion standards as they currently exist — so I'm quite familiar with what NPOL was intended and not intended to cover. NPOL #1 does not refer to civil service offices: it covers members of the legislature, executive offices such as president or governor, and cabinet-level offices in the jurisdictions (i.e. the US) where the cabinet is outside the legislature and thus a cabinet member isn't sitting in the legislature but is still otherwise equivalent to a cabinet minister anywhere else. It does not cover positions in the civil service bureaucracy; people in roles such as comptroller general have to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing, and are not handed an automatic presumption of notability under NPOL just for existing. For one thing, a civil service role does not make a person a politician — it makes them a bureaucrat. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this consensus written down anywhere? It seems like a natural place for it to appear would be in NPOL. If there's really a consensus, why don't you edit the policy to include it, because it's not at all obvious that that's what it means. Furthermore, the first time you mentioned this consensus you said that it was that NPOL only applied to legislative offices. Now you say it only applies to executive offices and legislators. Now it seems like you're altering it as you go. Also, are you claiming that politicians from nondemocracies can *never* satisfy NPOL, since those governments don't have legislative or executive offices per se? That also seems unlikely. And, you know, it's super interesting to learn how long you've been contributing. As far as I can see that doesn't give your opinion at AfD any more weight than mine. Anyway, I've been contributing for longer than a decade. So what? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, yes, it is obvious that I'm correct about what NPOL means — NPOL explicitly says, right in its own name even, that it's about the notability of politicians. Secondly, presidents and governors and US cabinet offices do still have legislative roles, so there's no contradiction between what I said the first time and what I said the second: the first was just a shorter summary, while I went into more precise detail in the second. And thirdly, you're making quite the leap of logic with the "nondemocracies" stuff — autocratic or otherwise nondemocratic governments do still have legislative and executive offices, with the only difference being that they're filled through some process other than direct election by the general public in a multipartisan competition. (For example, China still has a president and a legislature, and the only thing it doesn't have is multiple political parties competing for those offices.) Any notion that politicians in nondemocratic countries somehow fail NPOL completely fails to follow from what I actually said, because I said nothing about NPOL notability being contingent on whether the position was elected by the general public (which would even exclude Canada's senators) and/or holding office in a multipartisan democracy rather than an autocratic or one-party state. So no, I'm not taking responsibility for that strawman argument. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so obvious, why not edit it in to NPOL so we can see if there's actually a consensus. And you're just wrong about the US President and Cabinet, and state governors in the US. Not only do they not have legislative roles, they're explicitly forbidden by the constitution from having legislative roles. And if non-elected rulers in non-democratic countries are still politicians, how in the world are civil servants in national level offices not also politicians? After all, their offices are "filled through some process other than by direct election." Why is the president of China a politician rather than a civil servant, for instance? Can you tell me how you define "politician"? Because at this point, far from your criteria being as obvious as you insist they are, I can't actually comprehend them enough to disagree cogently. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The president and/or a state governor in the United States do not sit in the legislative body, but that does not mean that their roles are inherently non-legislative in nature — for one thing, they can exert an incredibly powerful influence over the agenda pursued by the members of the legislature (e.g. making demands about what they expect to see or not see in the budget, pushing for or against proposed bills, etc.), and for another, a piece of legislation actually becoming law is contingent on whether the president or governor agrees to sign it or not, and they have much more power to veto a bill on partisan grounds than a GG or LG in Canada does. So it's not a non-legislative role just because the president or governor doesn't sit in the legislative body — it's a role that still has a very strong legislative component to it. And the definition of "politician" is "a person who holds a political office", so a civil servant appointed to a non-political job does not reify into a politician just because some politicians in undemocratic countries were also appointed to their political offices instead of being elected to them. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civil servants can also have an incredibly powerful influence over the legislative agenda. So can large donors. That doesn't make them legislative officers. If influence defines legislative offices there's no serious way to exclude civil servants, like e.g. the heads of the CIA and the FBI. And if you're going to define a politician as someone who holds a political office, can you define what makes an office political? It's not being elected to it, it's not that it's legislative, what is it? What about countries where the president is essentially powerless and it's the head of a single party that runs everything, like the Soviet Union? Would you say that the head of the CPSU doesn't meet NPOL but the president of the USSR does? That seems incredibly implausible. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything whatsoever about "legislative officers", for starters — I said legislative roles, not legislative officers. If NPOL notability were limited to legislative officers, then even 75 to 80 per cent of legislature members would fail to qualify under NPOL, because most members of a legislature are backbenchers rather than officers of the legislature. No, the president or governor aren't legislative officers — but I never said they were, and most actual members of the legislature aren't officers of the legislature either. And no, civil servants do not have influence over the legislative agenda — their job may certainly have advisory aspects, such as writing policy analysis reports about the effects of a current or proposed policy, but they have no power to decide policy for themselves: their role is to receive and implement policy directives from the politicians, not to give directives to the politicians. And while donors can influence the political agenda, they aren't covered under NPOL at all — they're covered under other notability standards for the prior careers that gave them enough money to become donors, such as businesspeople or actors. What makes an office "political" is that it has the power to make political decisions that can change what directives the civil service is given to carry out. And again, you're really setting fire to another strawman if you think contrasting the head of the CPSU vs. the president of the USSR is a rebuttal to anything I said about a civil servant in Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. In the US members of the legislature are legislative officers in the sense that they hold office in the legislative branch. But your distinction between who receives and implements policy directives won't help in the US either. The president, e.g., is not political by your definition, as she/he is forbidden from deciding policy in one sense. In another strong sense civil servants in the US can decide policy through implementing regulations. So far you've shifted the need for a definition from "politician" to "political" and now to "policy" but you're no closer to making yourself clear. Really, the head of the CIA can make decisions that can change what directives the civil service is given to carry out as long as those decisions and the subsequent directives are found by courts if challenged to be rationally related to implementing the enabling legislation. Anyway, you convinced TheGracefulSlick, who I'm not pinging because they threatened to arrange for me to get two in the head if I ever pinged them again, and that's enough to convince me that it's time for me to save my electrons for a discussion where everyone but me doesn't already agree. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails every aspect of WP:NPOL; I trust Bearcat's, and my own assessment of the guideline, is quite accurate. This also includes the complete lack of reliable sources and there is no evidence that convinces that sources exist offline.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do have to wonder if the distinction between civil service and policy creating roles needs to be reassessed in some articles we have on USA government functionaries. However Rogers clearly does not fall into the built-in NPOL exemption to other rules, and this article lacks the sourcing to justify having it. This political v. civil office dichotomy might also be need to be reassessed in considering weather we should have articles on some of the Indian police functionaries we have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This biography may need to be trimmed, but this is a recently-deceased person who served for along period of time in a high-level office and there are almost certainly enough sources to write a decent article. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete civil servants are not the same things as politicians. Bearcat's analysis here holds true. He does not meet our criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Citrus. (non-admin closure) startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 20:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus juice[edit]

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

Although citrus juice is used in food and beverages, it does not demand to have a separate article on Wikipedia. Diptanshu 💬 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~keep~~ Useful directory. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to citrus fruit. This is a WP:DICDEF of a term, not an encyclopedia article about a thing — and it can't be made into a proper encyclopedia article about a thing, because all that can ever actually be said about this is the recursive "citrus juice is juice extracted from citrus fruits" definition and a list of links to the more specific types of citrus juice. "Useful directory" is not a keep rationale, because being a directory isn't what Wikipedia is for. There's nothing to be said about this that requires a standalone article, when the existing citrus fruit already covers it in a more appropriate and useful context. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to citrus fruit. See above. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:14, 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 no consensus. Same ol' same ol'. Community has not reached consensus as to what constitutes notability regarding secondary educational institutions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.E Foundation Secondary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Yes, it exists. But it fails WP:GNG and seems to be copyvio from Edugrid. No independent, reliable sources found that can prove notability. (Just proving existence is not enough any more due to the RfC about Schooloutcomes) The Banner talk 15:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD just closed a week ago, after two relists, with no consensus on an RfC that's more than a year old. I don't see the rationale for renominating immediately. Seems worth seeking more clarity on the RfC elsewhere rather than clogging up AfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails SCHOOL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment removed copy-violating section about the breakdown of school years. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of schools in Karachi where it is listed among the other 100-200 schools most of which do NOT have an article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORGCRIT. Outside of the school's own website, only mentions are directory-like listings, which is what the List supplies. The one source posted is the List of Schools in Karachi as provided by Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. [5] No news articles to write up anything beyond a sentence or two. Per WP:WITHIN it can be described in the list article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no authoritative references are provided which discuss the subject in a manner to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. Previous AfD only closed a week ago. You can't keep on re-nominating until you get the result you want. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF please. I have not been involved in that discussion, and, to be honest, I did not even see it. But I do see a non-notable school. The Banner talk 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still. Too soon for another nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is also my view; regardless of intention, in the interests of keeping AfD functional, something really needs to have changed to justify a second bite at the apple so soon. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you didn't see it then you didn't even make the most basic of checks before nominating. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The special pleading for institutions that educate as somehow inherently notable with no adequate sourcing needs to end.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a deletion discussion for this was closed as "no consensus" just last week. If anyone disagrees that the closure was performed correctly then that is a case for deletion review. Otherwise the close should be respected. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's 50/50 in my eyes - The AFD shouldn't of really been done but on the other no one checks the talkpage and as such renominating is an easy mistake to make and I will go as far as to add the previous AFD was closed as No Consensus not Keep or Delete so in that respect there isn't really any GAMING here so as whole the AFD is more or less fine and should continue. As I said it's 50/50 but it's been open for 3 days so seems rather pointless closing now. –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No one checks the talkpage"? Really? Everyone should check the talk page before starting a deletion discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Would you check the talkpage of every article before you nominate it ?, We'll agree to disagree on that. –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled out in the WP:BEFORE instructions--in fact it's item B4 (...get it? sorry, I'll show myself out). I realize people ignore parts of BEFORE a lot--and then they get called to task for it. If folks want to remove it from the AfD instructions (not my recommendation, for reasons this AfD exemplify), that's a discussion to have on the AFD talk page or Village Pump or vel sim. But for now it is explicitly part of the nominating process... Innisfree987 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is, just as SCHOOLOUTCOMES, one of the more misused pages to prevent deletion. But what is the status of that page? It looks nothing more than an information page without official status. The Banner talk 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the status of the page: like I already said, you're more than welcome to go make an effort to change the instructions if you think it's not important for nominators to look at the talk page. I personally would oppose such a change, because I think when followed, it helps us avoid unjustified renominations of recently closed AfDs, which I regard as disruptive unless there is a clear change in circumstance (e.g. new sources; newly established policy; etc.) since the close. I have not heard anyone indicate that there is that here. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is part of the instructions to follow when nominating an article for deletion. In every other area of Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith attempt to follow the consensus-agreed procedures, so why is it that some editors feel that that is not necessary for deletion nominations, with some even boasting that they ignore consensus? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for not-noticing the prior AfD, I did my research to find notability. If not, I would not have nominated it. But as I stated above, the page is often misused in school-nominations. And it is often used to accuse nominators of bad faith. By the way, I have noticed that you discretely avoided an answer on the status of the page... The Banner talk 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, my whole statement was about the status of WP:BEFORE, i.e. something that has been agreed by consensus to be part of the procedure for nominating articles for deletion. And, actually, it is not a page, but part of a page. Why do you consider this part of the page to be any less important than the other parts that you followed? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I wouldn't dream of nominating an article for deletion without checking the talk page first, and am shocked that anyone could possibly think that doing so is a good idea. I most certainly do not agree to disagree. My position is supported by many years of consensus; your position is disruptive to the building of this encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the classic case of attacking the nominator due to lack of arguments based on policies and guidelines. The Banner talk 18:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make such obviously unfounded allegations. Nothing that I said there even remotely resembles "attacking the nominator". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per AngusWOOF, as there isn't enough material here for an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last AfC continued to say that there was no consensus to change the policy of keeping all secondary school articles where verification was possible. See my long comment in the previous AfD for the explanation. The current practice of trying to nominate them for deletion is harmful enough (by taking effort that is needed to work on the actually detrimental articles) when it's done once. Doing it repeated is an attempt to wear out the opponents. It highlights the reason for the continuing practice of keeping them, and is beginning to give the impression of a crusade. Let's save our crusades for where we need them, like attempts at promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never noticed that people who were distracted from improving school articles due to AfD-nominations, were ever seriously trying to improve the school articles that were nominated. The Banner talk 00:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep DGG put it very eloquently in the last nomination for this school "since it takes 1 minute to list an AFD if one ignores WP:BEFORE, and about 5 if one does a cursory Google search, and it would take a many hours to do a thorough online searc--and an impossibly long time to do one in print. This gave a great bias towards deletion--and continues to give a bias towards deletion in most fields if one takes a very strict interpretation of the terms in the GNG. The bias was countered then, and now, by each WPedian taking a strict interpretation for articles they did not want in WP, and a lax one for ones they did." tl;dr it takes far less time and effort to nominate something for deletion than to actually do the work of improving articles

I don't think anyone's ever put it so eloquently and I think it's way past time we need a moratorium on nominating verified schools for deletion. In a few recent cases,for example Phor_Tay_High_School myself and others spent a lot of time doing detailed research into showing the schools notability to save it from deletion. Unfortunately not schools will have editors willing to do that, nor in fact will it be possible for all schools to be saved due to an absence of English language sources or local editors who can work on the page, or people who have the time (what is it a few days if you want to save an editor's hard work from being sent down the memory hole?) What we are seeing in these school nominations is a clear example of Wp:Systemic_bias and WP:Bigotry (Why exactly do we have editors with no background in education or relation to the area, specifically targeting schools in Pakistan?) it's about time it was stopped. This school exists, and nothing has changed since the last nomination which failed to delete it. Stop this madness. Egaoblai (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never noticed that people who were distracted from improving school articles due to AfD-nominations, were ever seriously trying to improve the school articles that were nominated. But I do see people hammering on WP:BEFORE while that page has no real authority. The Banner talk 00:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are still peddling the untruth that WP:BEFORE has no real authority. It is a section of the consensus-agreed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and as such has just as much authority of any other section of that page, such as that an AfD template should be placed on the relevant page and that the discussion should be listed in the daily log. If those requirements are not fulfilled then the article is speedily kept, so why should a failure to perform the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives be treated any differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing has changed since the last AfD. A verified school and of sufficient public interest to keep it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But no sources to back up its notability what is required since the RfC The Banner talk 00:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt since Wiki would not be significantly improved by deleting this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, you mention above removing a copyvio section, but the entire text of the article matches this source. Do we know who copied who here? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the table of school years. The bulk of that paragraph was written in 2010 over multiple edits so not sure if Edugrid copied Wikipedia or vice versa. I've rewritten the paragraph so as to remove the extraordinary claim of being the largest English-medium school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:24, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Maria LeMaistre[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress, whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to primary sources that cannot support notability. If you're shooting for "notable because she's had roles", rather than "notable because she won a major acting award for one of those roles", then the notability clinch is not in the list of roles itself, but in the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage about her in media that can be shown to get her over WP:GNG for the having of roles. But the only sources here are the self published press kit of one film she was in, and her IMDb profile -- neither of which are notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any interpretation of notability. I have to admit I think we have erred too much on the side of accepting the notability of almost all actors and actresses as long as they had a role in a notable film. I think we need to rethink both what we consider notable films and notable actors. We have too many articles at present that are shallow coverage of people mainly based on IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per statements above. Additionally, I googled her and basically found nothing, which shouldn't be the case for a notable actress of her age. wikitigresito (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tipu Khan Bahadur[edit]

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

Purely promotional fluff. Fails GNG as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional article. MT Train^Talk 16:41, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandadan[edit]

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

Can't quite work this article out. The subject matter seems almost impossible to find information on (I could only find [6]). The article is pretty much unchanged since 2009, entirely unreferenced, goes completely off-topic and doesn't seem at all to justify why its needed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of sources. Also the article is a wall of text that does not really explain why what it speaks of is significant. Wikipedia needs better coverage of non-Western and histocal topics, but this does not justify unsourced articles that ramble. For example today I realized our article on Benin is extremely lacking in any significant discussion of the history of that country, really at all, but especially before 1890 and especially for the parts of the modern nation that were not in the historical boundaries of the Kingdom of Dahomey, which is by area the northern half or so of the country, plus Porto-Novo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peach Pit (band)[edit]

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

Article with some advertorial undertones about a band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry an article. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they have to attain certain specific quantifiable achievements that pass an WP:NMUSIC criterion for an article to become earned. And the sourcing here isn't cutting it, either: of the five footnotes present in this article, two are primary sources (their own self-published Bandcamp profile and a Spotify stream) and the other three are blogs, which means that exactly zero of them are notability-supporting sources. This is possibly just WP:TOOSOON, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when their notability and sourceability have improved, but nothing here is enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note They definitely fit WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 and 4. circuitsweet.co.uk/2017/09/peach-pit-announce-2018-european-tour-debut-album-being-so-normal-out-now-on-kingfisher-bluez/ Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blog, not a reliable source, and the "article" is the band's own press release, so it doesn't constitute evidence of notability under either #1 or #4. NMUSIC #4 is not automatically passed the moment a band's own press releases announce that a tour is happening — it requires real media (e.g. music magazines or newspapers, not blogs) writing and publishing their own independent editorial content (e.g. actual concert reviews) about the tour. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the link above is to a thinly-disguised press release. WP:NMUSIC criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the comment that #1 or #4 are met per cited references; that is self-generated coverage in an unimportant source (a blog). I could only find similar small time, run-of-the-mills, routine coverage and reviews that conveys existence, but not notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just perusing AfDs today, immediately recognized this band name due to this song. Surely I would never write an article that touts an artist using the phrase "melds teen angst with bummer summer vibes", and I can't say I understand which music websites are now considered notable for indie bands other than Pitchfork, but they do have a fair amount of that type of coverage, e.g., [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], which suggests notability. I mean, perhaps they aren't as good as our favorite Soundcloud rappers, but this is some decent coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC specifically deprecates university and college newspapers as unable to support musical notability, so the Kenyon Collegian is out of the running, and The 405, Counteract and Khaosod English are blogs, so they're out of the running. Of those six sources, the only ones that are worth anything at all toward NMUSIC #1 are BeatRoute and The Georgia Straight — but those both represent local-scene coverage in the band's own hometown local media, not evidence that their notability has expanded enough to pass NMUSIC #1. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a blog anymore? I don't know. These aren't the personal blogs of old. Some of those like the 405 come up under Google News results, not that that is dispositive. I will also note that the youtube video I linked has almost 10 million views, in case anyone thinks this AfD is occurring in 2006, when it would be a good argument.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of views received by a piece of content on YouTube is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability criteria — no number of likes or followers or views or retweets on any social networking platform confers any sort of free exemption from having to clear WP:GNG just because it's a big-sounding number. And as for "what is a blog anymore", being published to WordPress is an automatic yellow caution light in and of itself — it is sometimes used by real reliable source publications as the content management system for their web presences, so it's not an automatic deal-breaker in and of itself, but the moment you see WordPress you always have to check for other evidence as to whether there's a real trustworthy media organization of some description behind it or not: can you locate a masthead of staff contributors, or does it appear to be a one-person operation that solicits user-generated content submissions? Does it also publish a print edition, or is WordPress the only form in which the title has ever existed at all? Does its content actually read like real journalism, or does it look suspiciously more like press releases? That sort of thing. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Subsidy[edit]

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

Sources for this term virtually all post-date the article according to Google. This is suggested to be a term used in economic but there aren't academic sources for it. It appears to be original research and a neologism that the article is inadvertently promoting. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete - I don’t know the topic well enough to suggest a target (or targets)... but the article contains a lot of well sourced material that deserves to be presented somewhere (else) in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to~~ dirty subsidy, from which a large chunk was copied without attribution in this edit. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Fossil Fuels section is also plagiarized wholesale from this paper from the Center for Economic Studies. Leaving it up for now per WP:SNOWBALL. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles per Calton and Doug Weller below, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty subsidy. You're both right. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete as above .PRehse (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Dirty subsidy unless there's some evidence that this is a term as defined that is actually being used as such. Yes, they're well-sourced, but the sources are in support of an argued premise, not summaries of its use. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dirty Subsidy seems to be a part of a Wiki-Ed project (Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Memorial University/Introduction to International Politics (Winter) -- but the original article (Dirty subsidy -- note capitalization) is specifically listed on project page, too. Which makes me think that we may have an unintended fork of the original article, not plagiarism. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to dirty subsidy. Septrillion (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how that solves the original research problem, so I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty subsidy Creating neologisms isn't our role. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as fork of article which needs to be deleted anyway. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was hoping this was going to be the name of a soundcloud rapper, but alas it is not. All I can say is that Google Scholar has no direct hits for "dirty subsidy", so it seems like this concept probably does not normally go by this title. I would suggest "lil skeezy subzeeD" as a a better title if we wish to greatly increase confusion with soundcloud rappers. Otherwise, perhaps a review of Pigovian tax would help us head in the right direction.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neoligism/or. I'm !voting the same at the other article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaquesmith[edit]

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

No sources nor claim of notability. Wikia page about a fictional character from Marvel. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick Google reveals no reliable sources discussing the character in any detail. There may be a case to merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B, but I think this violates WP:SOURCELIST. The entry is overall more suited to a wikia. --Killer Moff (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - normally I'm for merging articles like this to the character list, but without references or real world information there's just not enough to merge. I can't even tell if either character appeared in more than one issue. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found, otherwise redirect/merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like most of the comic book character articles, he is a minor non-notable character that should be on a fan Wikia rather than Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulisses Soares[edit]

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

No independent sources to establish notability, all sources are related to the Mormon Church. Deleted on the Portuguese wiki. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 13:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 13:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See link. Although comparatively young, in April Elder Soares became the newest, and the lowest ranking, LDS apostle (of which there are 15). The first ever Latin-American to hold this position, statistically speaking (the numbers crunched according actuarially solely according to age), his chances of becoming LDS leader-prophet might be guestimated over 5%.[13][14] Worldwide, there are as many Mormons in world as e.g. Jews, and for both these two religions, half live inside, half live outside, the US. Considering the population of Mormons worldwide, these fifteen individuals of the LDS apostolate certainly in no ways ought be thought "too many" for automatic notability and WP coverage (by analogy with Wikipedia:CLERGY. In fact, each LDS apostle has a blp. See List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)#Current Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.) Many news organizations gave coverage to his appointment, in the U.S.^{e.g. NYT} and internationally.^{El Universo} Bottom line: this blp passes wp:SIGCOV, in that, since becoming an LDS leader, its subject has been the subject of more than one media profile in reliable sources independent of himself.^{(1) Salt Lake Tribune (2) Deseret News}--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - It is circular reasoning to assert that an individual claimed notable in some field must have received media coverage not pertaining to that field. WP's privileging independent coverage would not discount coverage by the AP, NYT, various weekly US news magazines, such sources as El Universo or Salt Lake Tribune, etc, in the case of Soares. Whereas the Deseret News is owned by the church, note that its national edition--a weekly publication that is only available outside of Utah--has a print circulation of over 100,000 plus a very sizeable digital-only circulation, so in no way should it be considered only a local or even only a "regional" paper. (It's one of the top 25 in the U.S. What's next? Saying, owing to ownership of the news entities in question, NBC News cannot denote notability via its coverage concerning Disney films; Washington Post, via its coverage of Amazon or of Whole Foods Markets? What does Carlos Slim Helu own other than the NYT?) To say something cannot be considered notable on the basis of coverage in the Deseret News does not square with WP's basic wp:RS guidelines, as would be the erroneous belief that coverages in the number-one U.S. Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist publications cannot denote reliable and independent coverage for Wikipedia's purposes. Cf.: e.g. List of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), List of Episcopal bishops of the United States, List of Chief Rabbis of the United Hebrew Congregations, List of Catholic bishops in the United States.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - The article has been deleted three times in the Portuguese wikipedia. It has never been possible to prove its notoriety with external sources of the "A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias". Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Three times since Soares's April 2018 appointment? The Portuguese Wikipedia is fast. In any case, see wp:OTHERSTUFF.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He is not quoted here[15] Is there an official link in Portuguese about the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles?Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one, User:Guilherme Burn: LDS.org church leaders Q12 (Portuguese language).
Also a link to a video hosted on (of course, the Spanish-lang.) Univision: link.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand that participating in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles already characterizes notoriety. but I believe that the article could be better referenced with independent quotes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Guilherme Burn. Existem vários colaboradores que estão tentando complementar as citações do artigo agora.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the 12 most important names of a 17-million-member Church. Dantadd (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional sources should be added, but it should be kept. All previous apostles from this worldwide church are included, and this is the first Asian ever to be in the Quorum. One of the claims is that only Deseret News reported it. This isn't accurate. CBS News reported it. The New York Times reported it. The Associated Press reported it. I would say all three of them are notable organizations.Bigddan11 (talk)

cmt - Latin American, not Asian. :-) Dantadd (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Soares might not have a remarkable professional career, but he has been somewhat notable for rising in the ranks of the LDS Church (the Mormon Church) over the years. He became especially notable 2.5 weeks ago when he was named as one of the church's 12 apostles, a lifetime position. There is no higher position in the church other than the president himself, who is simply the longest serving apostle. And particularly noteworthy is that he is the first Latin American apostle since the church's founding 188 years ago, despite a significant portion of church membership in Latin America. He and another man were the two first non-white apostles. Since this month there have been plenty of independent, reliable sources: CBS, Chicago Tribune, Salt Lake Tribune, Newsweek, NY Times, NPR, PBS NewsHour. ——Rich jj (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note - 18 users were informed of this discussion by Hodgdon's secret garden. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Thank you, User:Primefac.

Everyone please note: The one-and-a-half-dozen wp:CANVASSed were "selected" in an unbiased fasion, their being simply all who have contributed edits to the article nominated for deletion. From the wp:AfD guideline:

"After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors - While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been way more than enough coverage of him in various publications. Wikipedia has articles on every other member of the LDS QUorum of the 12 ever, and for good reason. They will be widely covered in lots of sources. I did find this [16] Bloomberg Business link that is probably about him, but I am not 100% sure. There are lots and lots of substantial mentions in mainstream media publications. I still have not adequately incorporated the substantial article on him and his wife run by the Deseret News after his call into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On further investigation that link I provided above is to a different Ulisses Soares. That does not negate the fact that As one of the top 15 leaders of a 16 million member Church, with his call to this position covered in lots of major papers throughout the United States and the rest of the world, there is no reasonable criteria to say that Soares is not notable. People can be notable solely for their role in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and this is clearly the case of many other apostles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here [17] is a book that quotes from Soares. This does not meet the standards of scholarly work, but it is an indepdent book that takes his statements as worth quoting, and that is a few years before his call as an apostle. For the records, I created the article on Soares several years ago. The fact that this article was not even nominated for deletion until after he became an apostle seems exceptionally odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the New York Times and the many articles based on the Associated Press say little about Soares, they do say some. However the Salt Lake Tribune provides substantial coverage of Soares. The Salt Lake Tribune is fully indepdent of the LDS Church in every way, so even the hard to support attempts to discredit all LDS-church related coverage of Soares will fail there. Beyond this, the article not only gives significant background on Soares, but includes quotes about him from two leading academics in the field of Mormon studies. Patrick Q. Mason, the holder of a named chair in the field, is quoted with a statement that covers both Soares and Gong, but says their call is extremely, extremely significant, one of the most significant from the last 40 years. Martins on the other hand speaks to the issue of Soares specifically. I have to admit that I am a bit surprised there has not been more coverage of Saores in the Brazilian press. Although not being fluent in Portuguese I am not sure if there has been or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert, I cited a Portuguese profile of Soares here: diff.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here [18] is another published book that quotes Soares.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his new position assures notability, coverage supports it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here [19] is a Wall Street News Article that my sense is posits Soares and Gong as a sign of the LDS Church finally "going global". I have to admit the analysis in here to me underestimates the importance of the calling of non-American general authorities which has been going on for years, and the various stages in making areas based outside of the US have significant roles in the way to the Church is run. In fact some would argue that the Church first went global no later the 1970s when Neal A. Maxwell and the Church Board of Education decided instead of having Americans run the Church Educational System worldwide, they would proactively recruit people from various countries and as much as possible have the Church Educational System run by locals. This is why Elder uceda, Elder Taylor Godoy, Elder De Hoyos and Elder Dube among LDS general authroties from outside the US all spent their careers running the Church's supplemental weekday religious education programs (seminaries and institutes) in their various countries, or at least as full-time Church employees running it. Elder De Hoyos may have never run it for more than Mexico. Elder Uceda I am not 100% sure on what the area he oversaw was exactly. Elder Godoy was last running the Church Educational System in his native Peru, plus Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Elder Dube ran it in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi. The data on this issue is hard to find, but I have the impression that basically all international areas had locals running the Church Educational System at all levels, at a time when the Presiding Bishopric which oversees properties of the Church and distribution of funds and other physical operational activities was often relying more on Americans sent abroad. Thus the person who recruited Elder Soares into working as a fulltime employee of the LDS Church as Brazil South Area auditor in the 1990s was an American working as the head of temproal affairs in the Brazil Area at a time when the CES had been run by Brazilians for over 20 years. Elder Michael J. Teh, the only current general authority seventy from the Philippines, spent his career working for the Church. He was head of member and statistical records for the Philluipines Area and before that had worked as temple recorder. So less focused on fiancial issues than Soares, but not in a position where he worked directly with the teaching of Church doctrines, as were Dube, De Hoyos, Uceda and Godoy (plus Elder Paul Johnson from the US, not to mention Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the 12, although Holland since he was a religion professor at BYU came up from a slightly more acdemic pathway than some of the others), Elder Tanuiel B. Wakolo the only general authority seventy to date from Fiji, spent his early career as a police officer. However he was head of the Church's Fiji Service Center before becoming a mission president (in Arkansas, but that is another story). I have not yet figured out if this service center was involved in tracking land records, distributing lesson materials, or a place where employment and other services were given, or maybe even both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the WSJ piece John Pack Lambert linked abv: "Ulisses Soares was born in Brazil and worked as an international accountant, holding church positions in South America, Africa, Portugal and Salt Lake City."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- For those who care to learn the answer to the question above, [20] tells us "The Fiji Service Centre is one of eight Service Centres reporting to the Pacific Area Office in Auckland, New Zealand. The Service Centre is the temporal affairs administration office for the Presiding Bishopric in Fiji." This tells me it is over land purchase, upkeep of chapels, especially supervising the type of maintenance on buildings that needs to be done by engineers, probably has some role in membership and financial records, and key to interfacing with the government for official Church purposes. It probably also oversees the distribution of the resources through the Church welfare system. Record keeping in the Suva Fiji Temple would not in general be under its purview, but it probably has some connection to the maintenance of that building. The activities of LDS Humanatarian Services in Fiji might also often be conducted indepdently from it. I suspect it has some role to play in any activities of the Perpetual Education Fund in Fiji, although the implementation of the fund from a practical standpoint is probably more done by the Church Eduational System. I am still not 100% sure. This is partly because in the US basically all the US operations of these types are run from the Presiding Bishoprics office in Salt Lake City. There are local facialities management groups that oversee the maintenance of LDS buildings in an area of maybe 4 stakes, as well as having a role in selling buildings the Church no longer uses, purchasing buildings and the like. The PEF does not operate in the US, and BYU Pathway International in the US is run through local eccesiatical chanels although where Church Educational System buildings exist these are normally utilized. The welfare services in turn are seperate from facilities management, and even there the Employment Resource Center, Bishop Storehouse and LDS Family Services (a counseling agency, that used to also be involved in adoptions, but no longer is directly), even when they all operate out of a single location have different areas that they oversee and lack a unified director. most statistical records are handled centrally by the Presiding Bishopric Office in Salt Lake City, as is the contracting out of some building maitence functions. The Church has also devolved Church History record gathering and some family history record gathering and operational issues outside the US to the area offices. I am not sure if Wakolo would have handled any of these functions such as supervising the gathering of oral histories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep holds a high position and has rs coverage that passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as one of the 15 members of the highest LDS governing council. I don't see how this could possibly be challenged unless the nature of an LDS Apostle was not recognized. The details of his work in Brazil are interesting but not necessary--it's his position in the overall hierarchy that make him notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CLERGY says that bishops are generally notable, and being a member of the Quorum of the Twelve is more notable than that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Especially considering it was deleted at the first AfD a year ago. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K: Secret Eye[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film without significant coverage by 3rd party sources, does not meet criteria of WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 13:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 13:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are 2 refs in the article, neither reliable, it appears to have had a budget of around US$100,000, google showing various listings and blog discussion, nothing reliable i can see. Szzuk (talk) 19:46, 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. No prejudice if someone wants to make a redirect after deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine One[edit]

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

Very promotional and does not appear to be notable Abote2 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Radar detector. All the current references lead to manufacturer's own site so it gives a strong impression that the article was created by manufacturer to advertise their own product, this type of content obviously does not belong on Wikipedia. In an addition to that, there's absolutely no good way to improve such article (same goes for every other product by different radar detector brand, such as Escort, Radenso, Uniden and others) because these products are only relevant to a very small amount of enthusiasts so most of the useful product information (including detailed, up-to-date tests/comparisons) can only be found on such enthusiast's forums, YouTube channels and personal blogs and such sources aren't considered "reliable". Also, after looking at this article's history I have noticed that it has already been proposed for deletion back in 2009, and while the proposal was removed by some editor on the same day - that editor also failed to properly improve this article, for the same reason I've stated above. So it's better to just either remove this (and any similar future articles related to different brands of radar detectors) article completely or make a redirect to a general Radar detectors article.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Radar detector. Suprised it is non notable. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for product brochures.--Rpclod (talk) 02:27, 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 speedy Delete. as A7 (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighlightsNepal[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Does not pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage of in-depth reliable sources. KingAndGod 10:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 10:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 10:32, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Nomads[edit]

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

Promotion from band's managment. Not notable band. Releases are on a vanity label. There is a lack of coverage about them in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 10:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 10:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any degree of IRS or speciality/significant awards. Fails WP:GNG regardless of subject. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 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 keep. Keep per article and sourcing improvements - it seems unlikely that a different consensus will emerge. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sand geyser[edit]

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

First,this article has two references. The find articles link is not a WP:RS (it does not mention the subject in any way) and the Post and Courier article may be WP:RS (but that is not enough for notability). Finally, a WP:BEFORE search for "sand fountain" or "sand geyser" revealed nothing except Youtube videos (particularly a video of the event in Saudi Arabia), sources that try to explain the Youtube videos and speculative/how-to coverage (which does not make this subject notable). Also, see WP:Articles for deletion/Sand fountain (although that is from 2008, the same reasons for deletion apply here as not much has changed). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here it get serious mention: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004019519190195X . This article talks about sand fountain in New Zealand.: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpe1952/35/6/35_6_415/_article/-char/ja/ . It also gets a mention here: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/e69-055 (but seems to be a different phenomenon). There is also a different kind in the wave breaking zone, which would need a different article as it is totally different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this wretchedly constructed excuse of an article about a subject that lacks notability as presented. An expert might be of assistance here by providing off-line sources to geology and seismology texts. Otherwise, at best, this is a redirect to an article about dikes or geysers, in general. -The Gnome (talk) 10:00, 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 09:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found enough content and references to improve this article to acceptable standards. I'll be working on it today. Barbara ✐ ✉ 13:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have improved the article to the point where I have established its notability. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 21:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A natural phenomenon, verifiably real, no good reason to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If You Don't Love Me At My[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICDEF - "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them". I failed to see the encyclopedic value in this article which is better off merged into List of Internet phenomena. KingAndGod 07:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No merge needed; Wikipedia is WP:NOT Know Your Meme. Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm afraid the subject is a meme that's quite notable on its own, as numerous sources testify. The article can be improved, of course, in the sense that extant online-texts provide far more material than mere "definitions." Ah well, going to try and unclench teeth now. -The Gnome (talk) 10:26, 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 09:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not what Wikipedia is for. Get back to me in ten years about the lasting coverage about this topic. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above. Not what WP is for. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 19:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Septrillion (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the coverage is from a span of a few days. Notability requires coverage over a period of time. Not seeing an indication this should have a stand-alone article. Also, the article makes no claim of significance beyond an absurd line of citations, and provides absolutely no explanation, context, or anything else important to an encyclopedia article (AFDNOTCLEANUP, indeed, but this tests the question of whether a data dump of web links staves off CSD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added more references, including some from yesterday. So the coverage still continues, and it is too early to predict that it will end per WP:RAPID. wumbolo ^^^ 21:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID itself isn't a reason to keep, as it's canceled out by the immediately preceding section (WP:DELAY -- now with a shiny new shortcut, given how often it comes up when responding to WP:RAPID-related keep arguments at AfD). In other words, one cannot ignore the advice not to rush to create articles on new stuff and then expect people to adhere to the subsequent advice not to rush to delete articles on new stuff. Both are indeed good practice, but neither are themselves good reason to keep/delete. Ultimately, how I look at it is that there are times we look past our requirement that subjects get coverage over a span of time to show lasting significance if it's so obvious that they will receive such coverage. Internet memes, however, tend to get a flurry of coverage in a short timespan and only rarely see sustained coverage, so it's not one of those cases when we should look past that requirement. No opposition to userfying/draftifying until lasting significance can be shown, or merging if there's a sensible target. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Elster[edit]

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

Not a notable actress; none of the films she has been in appear to be notable. [21] is a more recent reference, but doesn't suggest that she meets any SNGs, and isn't the type of reference that suggests GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Suggest also looking at this version, before the article had 95% blanked.
Keep -- Sufficient discussion in RS to pass WP:ARTIST at least. See e.g. New York Mag, NY Mag again, Review in Bust, Review in the Observer, and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just scrapes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG IMO - there is coverage in this old version that could well be merged into the current article. Mdann52 (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources and worked on the BLP so it wouldn't be in violation. Could use a lot more work. That said, still passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:15, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man No More![edit]

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

Definitely a famous comic but there's nothing supporting why this issue merits an article (very, very few do). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that in this case it's an article about the storyline, not the issue itself, also far as short storylines go I'd say this is most likely notable, you should be able to find sources for this if you tried. I don't care too much so I won't bother to vote but if some fan put in effort they might do something with this article.★Trekker (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - famous within the Spider-Man lore, but on the Spider-Man page it's only listed for the first appearance of Kingpin. Its use as source material for films is better suited for the film articles. Searching for sources did lead me to this oddly titled headline, which made me think "No More" was the title of the Homecoming sequel. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Kuf-Linx[edit]

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

Article, referenced entirely to unreliable self-published sources with no evidence of any properly reliable source coverage in real media shown at all, about a band whose only discernible claim of notability is that they existed. Existing is not an automatic free pass over WP:NMUSIC, but nothing else stated or sourced about them here even tries to pass NMUSIC for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage on Google Books including contemporary coverage and more recent coverage noting their role in establishing the record label they signed to, their song So Tough charting, their backup band making news, and more. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - No reliable, third-party, published sources provided to support notability.~~--Rpclod (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for any? FloridaArmy (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you improve the article to reference the "plenty of coverage" such that notability is clear?--Rpclod (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FloridaArmy is right, although they should provide a link or two of examples for clarity. For instance, entry in the Encyclopedia of Rhythm and Blues seems, in my opinion, to more than establish suitability in the encyclopedia.[22] Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuff-Links are actually a different band. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[https://books.google.com/books?id=FKsSBREliAgC&pg=PA130&dq="The+Kuf-Linx"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH86Dt1MbaAhUH94MKHfM4CnsQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q="The%20Kuf-Linx"&f=false here's a source noting the Kuf-Linx vekrsion of So Tough charting. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I guess an alternative to deletion would be to redirect to The Champs - which formed when the musicians were invited to record as a backing band for this iteration of the Kuf-Linx.[23] Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The record label would probably be a better merge target. But my understanding is bands with songs that have charted are inherently notable. There's also quite a bit of coverage of this band on Google Books and elsewhere as noted above and seen whem the Google Books link above is utilized. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to sources in the article, So tough peaked at 76 on Billboard which satisfies WP:BAND #2 and there is independent RS coverage, some of which is now included in the article thanks to FloridaArmy. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any citation that demonstrates that the song was listed on the Billboard Hot 100 or certified by the RIAA, either of which is required for BAND #2 criteria. One of the added Google links does not mention the subject or song at all and the other page does not indicate that the song charted.--Rpclod (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cite I linked to above notes the song charted (as well as the song recorded by the band backing the group at the same session). I've seen it noted in other sources as well including a comparison of the rankings of the two song versions recorded by different groups at around the same time. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying "charted" is insufficient. That can mean many things; it needs to be in either the Billboard Hot 100 or certified by the RIAA as gold or platinum to meet WP:BAND criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC's charting criterion is not passed just because a book generically says "the song charted", without specifying what chart it purportedly appeared on. For all that source actually tells us, the song could have merely have spent one week at #40 on one local radio station in one single market. To make a band notable for charting, you have to be able to cite a source which confirms a specific chart position on a specific IFPI-certified chart provider that's considered an acceptable chart by WP:Record charts — you can't get them over that criterion just by citing a source which says "it charted" without specifying where or when or what chart position it reached. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charted on Billboard chart. See Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-2006 Record Research, 2007 - Music - 1176 pages page 476. Noted in sources already cited. And clearly meets the notability music guidelines in several respects. I don't know what else to tell you. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that they charted in Billboard is reflected only in the article's unacceptable sources (the unreliable fansites that don't count for guano). No reliable source present in the article says any such thing at all — the only Billboard citation given in the article is to an advertisement, not editorial content or an actual Billboard chart. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not realized that the existing cited link was not RS for this fact. This Billboard one should be better: "Top 100 Sides". Billboard. March 17, 1958. p. 31. Retrieved 2018-04-21. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Tied at 76 on the Billboard 100 and I struck my delete !vote. Hopefully someone adds this reference with some discussion at the article page.--Rpclod (talk) 17:17, 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. Author of page has explicitly requested deletion. Thank you for candor, King Prithviraj II. Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Life[edit]

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

No independent coverage in reliable source.Fails subject notability guidelines. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator. I was quite a new editor back then, and was not familiar with the site's unreliable history or notability. King Prithviraj II (talk) 13:28, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Wildwood Beach Patrol[edit]

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

A non-notable organization to have its own page. Nothing about it stands out and fails notability guidelines. At the very least, some of this info could be merged into North Wildwood, New Jersey.Tinton5 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new article/Delete. Perhaps we could salvage a tiny bit of the article:
"North Wildwood Beach Patrol was originated in 1914 by Mayor Harry Hoffman due to the rising need for beach safety and supervision. The patrol, when it first began, was a small collection of men in charge of overseeing the safety and well-being of the beach patrons, and it wasn’t until seventy-two years later in 1986 that the first women qualified and were hired by the beach patrol"

...and use it to create an article on History of lifeguards in the United States? Even Atlantic City doesn't have an article for its Beach Patrol, and they're the oldest in the country. There should be a state-by-state listing of where lifeguards are though. I can't see much needed beyond "X city began protecting its beaches in 1862. Its neighbor Y to the north began..." and so on. The lifeguard races (mentioned in this article) could be a section of the suggested article. I don't know enough about the subject matter, and not sure who to reach out to, but the article shouldn't be deleted until some effort is made to keep the useful information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reliable, third-party, published sources regarding the subject are not provided to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of coverage in reliable sources available. All it takes is clicking the "News" link above. See wp:before. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think recurring news of similar focus counts as reliably cited. All of my hits are coming from the local town/county papers, and therefore I don't think they are the best sources for establishing notability. The street I live on has been cited in the newspapers or local journals hundreds of times.. doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable group. All instances of it cited in the news are local, routine coverage which does not establish notability. The top hits are about the beach patrol men's basketball league, swimming advisories, and beach schedules. This doesn't establish GNG. Since "Local sources are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject," and all mentions of this patrol on only the first page are definitely trivial, if not routine mentions, it can be assumed this page doesn't really have notability. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. completely trivial local interest organization. The material that references them is basically mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 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 08:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deva Mahal[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose only stated or sourced indication of notability is that her debut album came out eight days ago. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article the moment it's possible to provide cursory verification that she exists: she has to pass an NMUSIC criterion for an article to become earned, but nothing stated or sourced here does so yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim and more sourcing for it, but as of right now it's still WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hannahmegmarx (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)*Keep per WP:GNG based on a Google News search with a pages of international news sources - not just related to her 2018 debut album. Hmlarson (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And supporting what notability criterion in NMUSIC? I see lots of glancing namechecks of her existence, but (a) not enough sources that are substantively enough about her to count toward passing NMUSIC #1, and (b) zero sources that verify anything about her that would get her over any of NMUSIC #2 through #12. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 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 04:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited from one's parents. Maybe too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG additional Google News results with international news sources and additional references added to page as artist in own right, beyond relationship with father.Hannahmegmarx (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that artist has received coverage in The New York Times, The Guardian, PopMatters, Elmore Magazine, Parade, Exclaim!, and Relix. Artist has also performed internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisnyhart (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes the General Notability Guideline with articles such as this one from The Guardian. Trout slap for nom. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:17, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qarar Ezala[edit]

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

promotional tone, poor quality references, questionable notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious spam excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. Likely also not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clearly meets WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Harvey[edit]

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

Cannot establish notability via reliable independent third-party sources. All currently listed references and links are self-referential primary sources. Gotitbro (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a two-time Jensen Prize winner.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That prize is for the best paper published in a year in one specific journal, rather than across a discipline. I don't think that that can be used to substantiate notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I opened the refs and they don't support notability. He won the Jensen Prize award but it doesn't convey notability in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With a named professorship he has a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. Additionally, RePEc lists him as #123 in the world [24]. For comparison, there are 2632 people on its list of the top 5% of all economists, so really he's among the top quarter of a percent. And with this and a Google Scholar h-index of 83 [25] including 14 publications with over 1000 citations each, he very clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. And as editor in chief of the Journal of Finance for six years, he passes #C8. A trout to Gotitbro and Szzuk for failing to follow our standards for academic notability in such a clear case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1, WP:PROF#C5 and WP:PROF#C8. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear pass of WP:Prof. A trout from me too. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Smith (Buddhist)[edit]

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

Article has no inline references or other indications that subject is notable. A search on Google News doesn't render any results that show significant coverage in reliable sources. Though in itself an interesting person, I'm afraid it can't be allowed on Wikipedia. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak delete was able to find The Atlantic trivial coverage, his books are clearly published, but yeah, not seeing a whole lot of notability so far. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been cleaned and should meet your requirements. Rodney was one of the earliest western Buddhist teachers, teaching from 1984 until present, author of four books, and one book written about him (Grace in Living by Kathleen Dowling Singh) and the Founding and Guiding Teacher of the Seattle Insight Meditation Society from 1993-2017— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8701:2A4F:AD97:865:73D3:129C (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2601:602:8701:2A4F:AD97:865:73D3:129C (talk · contribs · WHOIS), sounds good. Do you have any reports from news outlets or scholarly publications to validate this?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what scholarly journals would publish the realized words of a mystic but he has been featured in Tricycle and Buddhadharma Magazines and has taught at the leading Buddhist meditation centers including Insight Meditation Society in Barre, MA for 30 years. Also Cloud Mountain Meditation Center, Spirit Rock Meditation Center, and Southern Dharma Retreat Center. He is a major figure in Buddhist thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8701:2A4F:1039:4417:86E2:4AFF (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want to confirm that Rodney Smith has been a primary Western Buddhist Meditation Teacher and author of four deep and profound books on Buddhism. His books have a unique perspective that support our inward drive for freedom. It would be unfortunate to lose his page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8701:2A4F:B9D8:E755:8A6A:EB3B (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other." (WP:BASIC) There is no evidence for notability per WP:AUTHOR. JimRenge (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriety is often not the same as importance. Rodney has moved the Buddhist conversation forward and deepened its impact through his willingness to look at the 2500 year history of Buddhist thought from a new perspective, challenging us with clear modern day metaphors. He has broadened Buddhist understanding of awakening through what the Buddha implied rather than from a mere literal interpretation of his words.

2601:602:8701:2A4F:AD97:865:73D3:129C (talk · contribs · WHOIS), perhaps you should try https://dhammawiki.com instead. Wikipedia is rather scholarly.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:39, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies assuming sources exist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arshpreet Bhullar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note The Ekalavyas.com source currently cited in the article should be treated as promotional and not independent enough to demonstrate WP:GNG. From their website: "Ekalavyas is a media cum talent management enterprise in India. Starting with non-traditional sports, specifically Indian basketball, Ekalavyas will function in diverse verticals such as media, player representation and event management."[26]—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Mars[edit]

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

Is being a billionaire enough to make you notable? Otherwise, I see so credible claim to notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With the caveat of WP:OTHERSTUFF: Several Walton family members have only been "philanthropists" and have an article. Don't know if the people in that family three without wikilinks have gone through an AfD yet; someone can probably hit the Walkton family article history and see who's been unlinked. (Maybe that would be a rough guide to whether Valerie Mars is likely to be linked to enough substantial, third-party, reliable, independent sources to meet WP:BIO. --Closeapple (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think that being listed as #208 in Bloomberg Billionaires Index is strong statement about the (often hidden) potential of power which billionaires have. She and her three sisters are also among top-30 or so richest women in the world (per Forbes 3/2018 ranking). Certainly I consider per se everyone of the World's top-1000 Billionaires listed annually by Forbes worth at least a Stub-Class wikipedia article . To begin with; one can then develop such articles step by step. Wikipedia articles introducing very wealthy people, based on good references, help people to monitor oligarchy, which is more or less present in most countries. Tabloids, hasty non-social media etc are not so systematic in this. – By the way, did you look at all which references the article uses now? If so, which of them is no good? At this point, I have not yet check much of her philanthropist participation. Please feel free to add! -- And, have any of you idea why names in lists like The World's Billionaires 2015 have not been linked with corresponding (several hundreds of) articles? Cheers, --Paju~enwiki (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another board membership (of stock company) added, using both Bloomberg (and company page of their Board Members. Although this is not 3rd party source, it is quite strictly regulated, by stock rules; misinforming could lead to criminal charges) as reference. --Paju~enwiki (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She and her sisters are linked here as well: List of Americans by net worth. There are some references and some basic data of the two other Mars sisters (currently in red in the list mentioned above) e.g. in Wikidata already. Now I am waiting for this deletion request to vanish, before creating additional articles on billionaires in enwiki. Hoping to find some support instead of additional, non-supportative deletion requests. WKR,--Paju~enwiki (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Americans by net worth seems to list billionaires with at least 4 billion USD rich enough to mark person worthy also for a wikipedia article per se? If so, such a limit should automatically apply as a minimum criteria for article stubs about other billionaires (from other countries) to be kept as well?? Based on Forbes (3/2018) this would mean some 570 billionaires to be automatically wikiworthy world wide. Please comment! Can we agree about some limit or not? --Paju~enwiki (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is businesswoman: vice president of major industrial corporation and also board member in major firms/organizations (almost like 1/2 professional board member). I have now included participation in two nonprofit organizations. --Paju~enwiki (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see comments but no vote? Szzuk (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I would like to keep this article as I have created it. I am sure administrators can read the discussion also in enwiki. Paju~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs in the article support GNG. Szzuk (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mars family#Family members. I don't see much that supports GNG, other than inclusion in some lists of billionaires. When you see a mundane wedding announcement in the New York Times as a reference, you know sources are scarce. She seems to have kept a low profile: no scandals, wild behavior, major philanthropic efforts, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wedding announcement confirms her full name and family connections. I wonder why annual lists of billionaires (and more detailed entry descriptions) published by major business media would not be good references? On the contrary! They are, as these lists show also the relative position (wealth) of billionaires :-) Please compare: Is a ranking list published by some sport organization a valid reference? --Paju~enwiki (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are run-of-the mill coverage. This person is, apart from their huge stack of potatoes, entirely dull.TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stack of potatoes can be transformed into liquor. Or power. :-) If one wishes to find sexy articles, I can think many other publications, and not an encyclopedia, where to find that kind of reading. Paju~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And re all billionaires being notable, they are not. They merit an entry in a list of billionaires. That is all.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the added content, now passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder how many male billionaires are not considered notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominator The redirect suggested above seems sensible. Imo she is worth a mention somewhere, but otherwise is not worth an article. As the content and refs show; she got married and an announcement appeared, she does the stuff that ladies who lunch do and so is listed by the relevant organisations.TheLongTone (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by editor: I guess there are tens of short billionaire articles mentioning just family relation (inheretance) and their worth. E.g. Cargill family members Pauline MacMillan Keinath and Marianne Cargill Liebmann.--Paju~enwiki (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Imogene Powers Johnson. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that nobody would characterise serving on the boards of major corporations as stuff that "men who lunch" do. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current article completely claim to notabilityآریانا فغان (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh puh-lease. The refs confirm that she exists and that article content is accurate. There is nothing whatsoever that serves to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that. Having a Billion of anything, I believe establishes notability, in any circumstance. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A billion of anything makes you notable? I want my article. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article with specific inclusion in global lists by Forbes and Bloomberg passes WP:GNG, and separate entry apart from Mars family#Family members warrants specific entry on Wiki. Simone2049 09:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would recommend that by 22 April if no further comments or discussion, article has AfD removed. Simone2049 (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin will make that determination based on the arguments presented here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - look forward to that happening.Simone2049 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anyone who has has served on the boards of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ahlstrom and Rabobank North America clearly has a position of influence on world affairs much greater than many of the state legislators, footballers who have played in EFL League Two, popular musicians who have got to number 42 in the charts etc. who get automatic notability passes, even if she does happen to be a lady who lunches rather than a gentleman who lunches, and that is the kind of person that any serious encyclopedia should cover. "She does the stuff that ladies who lunch do" must be one of the most overtly sexist comments that I have seen on Wikipedia, and there is plenty of competition for that title. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: having more influence on world affairs than a footballer is not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cherry-picked the footballer comment, ignored the rest.Simone2049 (talk) 06:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanay-Timpishka[edit]

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

Merge I think with the article about it's discoverer as there appears to be no real independent confirmation for his claims. So not sure we have enough for a stand alone. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are other sources around with images and maps, so it seems quite real. See [27][28] Though searching excluding the publicist name only gets me unreliable sources. The page could also be called " Boiling River of The Amazon" or with lower case "t". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was my problem, a lot about him and the river, nothing indicating that either was notable without the other. I note (for example) this river does not appear (as far as I can tell) on Goggle maps, and I have not found any map with it on that might be called an atlas, they are all illustrating an article. There is no independent confirmation any of this existed before the "discoverer" found it. Hence why I suggested merge, neither is notable enough on their own (ironically it would be more notable if it did turn out to be a hoax, I suspect it would get more coverage).Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you look at other language Wikipedia articles, especially Spanish, you get a good number of reliable sources. Passes WP:GEOFEAT. Very poorly written article, though. SportingFlyer talk 21:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable, and has WP:RS. I have added some sources. Still a stub, though. --Macrakis (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XTrackCAD[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSOFT. No evidence of notability by reliable third party sources. Relies almost entirely on primary and self-published sources. Dollywares (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This software meet WP:NSOFT because:
- XTrackCAD is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appsoft4 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- XTrackCAD has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources.

List of references
^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20] References ^ Dana Yarnall: "CAD and Your Layout: Using a Computer Assisted Drawing (CAD) program to design your next layout" (Clinics, Tips and Techniques Page - Division 3, MCR, NMRA, Inc) ^ Ric Zimmerman: "Model Railroad Planning & Design" (Clinics, Tips and Techniques Page - Division 3, MCR, NMRA, Inc) ^ Tom Jacobs: "Your Computer: An Essentional Modeling Tool" (Philadelphia Chapter, NMRA Meet'2013) ^ Jim Ables: "Model Railroading in the Computer Age" (http://www.mcor-nmra.org/MCoR_Clinics.php ) ^ «MainLine» — The Journal of NMRA Australasian Region (Vol.33, №2, Winter 2016) ^ Plan Your Model Railroad with XTrkCAD – Gateway NMRA Meeting September 19, 2016 \| Gateway NMRA ^ Software \| National Model Railroad Association (NMRA official) ^ XTrkCad model railroad track software is going open source - The Silicon Underground ^ Model Railway Layout Design - XtrkCad ^ Model Railroad Layout Design CAD Software ^ Model Railroad - FCVRRHS.org French Creek Valley Railroad Historical Society, Meadville, PA 16335 ^ Railway Software - XTrkCad, Hornby Virtual Railway 2, Creat Your Own Model Railway ^ Model Railroad Links: Software: Track Planning - ModelRailroadData.Com ^ Learning XTrackCAD \| Design, Track \| Sumida Crossing ^ Drawing a Track Plan with XTrkCad \| TrainBoard.com - The Internet's Original ^ To CAD or not to CAD? That is the question when starting a track plan \| Sn2 Modeler ^ Layouts \| Sn2 Modeler ^ Rob's Railway Pages - The Layout ^ Kolejivo TT do programu XTrackCAD – Moduly Brno ^ Trackplans - DS&W Homepage

List of references

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]

References

Appsoft4 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appsoft4 How do you figure building-your-model-railroad.com to be an independent reliable source with editorial oversight? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad So, if building-your-model-railroad.com is (in your opinion) only one bad reference in this list, then it replaced now by adding better sources. Appsoft4 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are not reliable, several are forums and otherwise non-published, non-rs sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have put the list in a collapse because it was kind of intrusive to people reading the discussion. ^{[Username Needed]} 10:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. I've looked at the refs above and they are a mixture of unreliable, trivial, blog etc. If someone wants to list the best 3 or 4 refs I will have another look. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Szzuk I just add more better references in the top of List of references above (try look on new entries listed from 1 to 5). Also soon I will add more references to other publications) Appsoft4 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will go to neutral. Szzuk (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Struck second "Keep" vote by same user. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No need struck, just remove doubled vote. Appsoft4 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "additional" references are either primary sources or self published. Of the other non-primary sources, most simply mention the existence of the software. There are still no reliable, third party sources written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without synthesis of published material. Dollywares (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a niche piece of software with no significance outside of the very small (model railroading) community. The new sources supplied by Appsoft4 are insufficient to meet WP:NSOFT. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:25, 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 keep. this seems to be the consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep map[edit]

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

NN neologism, multiple problems with article for 8+ years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I can't decide whether I want to suggest this for deletion, transwiki or am just too conflicted. The article may well be a neologism but I'm not even particularly clear about what it's trying to mean - which I suppose is its own potential cause for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete From what I can tell, this is about heavily researching a topic and creating a mental map of it in your head- which is a pretty bizarre subject for an article. This is so obscure sounding and weird that I'm pretty sure it could be speedied under A11, because the person who came up with it is the only one who truly understands whatever this is. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - another neologism. No authoritative references to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Decision made, it may well be a neologism, and the reason I'm not sure is because of how confusingly and poorly written it is. Obtuseness can't be used as a defence, hence delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's numerous secondary sources in a before search and over 1,000 hits on Google Scholar discussing this concept which has increasing importance in the spatial humanities arena. Did anyone do a before search? SportingFlyer talk 20:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also since I'm in the minority here, sources from Harvard: [29] IUPUI: [30] Literature journal: [31] England: [32] National Council of Public History: [33] The term is widely used in diverse sources. SportingFlyer talk 21:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term is newly important or newly defined for geographical information systems and spatial humanities as per SportingFlyer. It is meaningful and worthwhile. I was just at a conference where the term was significant and clear and sessions about it were swamped. I added a shaky first-pass definition to the article. It needs development. -- econterms (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a paucity of reliable, useful, secondary sources that can actually be accessed (even in an abstract/summary format - frequently the abstracts in many of the deep-mapping examples don't actually contain anything useful for our purposes) makes this very difficult to consider for those of us lacking academic access, so WP:BEFORE is tricky to run. There is also quite a cross-over between sources; However two main things have changed my mind i) Lone paragraphs in the online access to a few books/JSTOR articles give at least indication of a wide-spread acceptance that this term exists, with a few details in the article being backed up ii) The article has been clarified since 1st listing so at least it can be interpreted - my thanks to the tweakers. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with the above, its been established that deep mapping exists, its just a vague concept that only barely warrants an article.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my delete !vote but decline to provide a keep !vote as I think it unclear whether this really is a notable subject versus a hyped neologism versus a dictionary entry that belongs in Wiktionary rather than WP. If it does remain, hopefully someone who cares about the subject will take some time to revamp the article so that it has encyclopedic value.--Rpclod (talk) 17:41, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drow deities[edit]

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

Fictional deities. Fails WP:NOTPLOT and of course also WP:N: only in-universe plot summary, no third-party reliable sources. Sandstein 06:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references are primary sources and the deities of the Drow are not notable to anyone besides dedicated fans. Fails WP:GNG and belongs on a fanwiki._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Drow. BOZ (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to WP:MERGEWHAT. Articles with serious problems (non-neutral, poorly sourced, poorly written etc.) are not seldom solved by merged. In some cases it can end up making the target article significantly worse. There doesn't seem to be any sourced info that would improve the Drow article in any way._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that merging this unsourced plot summary would make the target article worse. No argument is made for this proposal. Sandstein 17:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG unless WP:RS are found (not looked). Widefox; talk 13:13, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Society of Saint Gabriel[edit]

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

Sourced only to its own website and largely written by COI editors, there is no way that this meets the new, stricter notability guidelines Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounded like a real organization, so to spent a little time trying to source it (news archives, books, searches on both names) and came up empty. Sounds like a nice idea that didn't take off.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg B. Abbott[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO; his only potentially notable features are being on corporate boards, CEO of a non-notable company, and author of a self-published book. No in-depth secondary sources exist (the NYT article in the footer is a style section article; it does not give much information). Vahurzpu (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people who are only covered in style section articles cannot be assumed to be notable just for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memeulous[edit]

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

Non notable person. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO –Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference is a passing mention in a lengthy article about another YouTuber. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - non-notable. hiàn 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regrettably. The VICE article may however warrant a WillNE article. groig (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not many references mentioned. Notability is an issue, so its a delete. M A A Z T A L K 20:04, 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. Consensus is that this topic is notable. That said, AngusWOOF's point should probably be addressed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zengeza High School[edit]

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

Not notable by any stretch of the imagination – not WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG or even WP:GNG. Originally PROD, was de-PRODed by @Eastmain: on the assertion that all schools that have been mentioned in any reliable source are notable, which is blatantly not the case as per the above guidelines. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is a high school and the article has a reference from a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't how notability works. Please could you read the notability criteria linked above and tell me where exactly they say that one reference from a reliable source is sufficient to establish a high school's notability?--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - any diploma granting school that's existence can be verified to reliable secondary sources are generally kept based on the presumption of local off line sources. If you doubt this, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. John from Idegon (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is pretty much deprecated so that can safely be ignored, Anyway a simple search would've shown plenty of results[34], So per the sources in the article and per those on Google easy keep. –Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: The problem as I see it is that none of the sources that exist meet all of the criteria they need to meet. Bulawayo24, for instance, accepts undeclared sponsorship for articles, and can therefore not be considered reliable – which is presumably why it isn't being cited. Here's what is being cited:
1. 3 x "Zimbabwe Schools Guide" (incorrectly labelled as newsday.co.zw). Self-published hokum, fails "reliable source" criterion.
2. 1 x "The Herald". Yep, good source and significant coverage. Well done.
3. 1 x "Newsday". No idea what this is, looks bloggy, could be legit but might also not be, potentially fails "reliable source" criterion.
4. 1 x "ITS MY FOOTPRINT". More self-published hokum. Looks like a spam site, even. Fails "reliable source" criterion.
5. 1 x "My Zimbabwe News". This looks to be Zimbabwe's equivalent of a clickbait site. The article published immediately before the one cited is titled Sex duty roster turns nasty as first wife axes second wife over too many sex rounds, which reads like fake news. This website also links in its menu to another almost identical-looking website called "Facts University", where the current "trending article" is titled What every woman's VAG!NA shape and size tells you about her personality (WITH PICS). Clearly fails "reliable source" criterion.
6. 1 x "4-traders". There's nothing wrong with this source, but this literally just contains one passing mention of the word "Zengeza", and so obviously fails the "significant coverage" criterion.
7. 1 x "Pachikoro". This looks to be the best of a bad bunch (aside from the Herald), but still dubious. Sure it's curated, but curated by whom?
8. 1 x "The Zimbabwean". This thing claims to be "recognised worldwide as an authoritative and accurate publication of record and a reliable source of information"...except I can't find any references to it anywhere of note. So, dubious again.
Summa summarum, we have 1 reliable source with significant coverage, 1 reliable source with insignificant coverage, 3 unreliable sources, and 3 sources whose reliability can't be ascertained (nor indeed their independence). I'm sorry, but that isn't significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, it's significant coverage in one reliable secondary source, and then (to put it frankly) a whole heap o'crap.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it may have to explain what is the difference between this one and the Zengeza 1, Zengeza 2, Zengeza 3, and Zengeza 4 High schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of schools in Zimbabwe where they list multiple Zengeza high schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, makes sense, better than pure deletion.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schooloutcomes is a bizarre claim that sources that we cannot find exist. It is time to scrap such appeals that violate the basic principals of verifiability and only keep articles where sources are actually shown to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The last RfC didn't do any better job of clarification about school notability than the last dozen did. Therefore, until a better crafted one emerges, we have the community consensus, ie precidence, which is expressed in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The crux of the question is this: are schools ORGs or PLACEs? I'd argue PLACEs,and at least one major source, GNIS, agrees. The presumption that local, non netlinked, sources exist is not a stretch. Especially for "third-world" (apologies for lack of PC) locations. Simply, Google hasn't completed their work worldwide. Systematic bias is a real thing. US, European, Australian and Canadian secondary school articles seldom are deleted because Google has completed their work in those places. Asia, with some exceptions, and Africa...not so much. John from Idegon (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're ORGs as schools can be relocated, so WP:ORGCRIT applies. The recently AFD-kept Holton High School is such an example. But if you're discussing the building or the physical location then they need to satisfy WP:NGEO AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the sources found by Davey2010. Consensus wisely decided long ago that secondary schools are considered notable as productivity would be severely wasted if we were to vet and scrutinize the value of the tens of thousands of such schools when time and energy of volunteer editors is better spent creating new articles and improving existing ones. --Oakshade (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears to be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schooloutcomes and also the sources noted above clearly establish WP:V and notability too. A reminder to editors that WP:AQU applies here. We don't delete articles just because they aren't perfect. Egaoblai (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: On the basis of the recent RfC on notability for organisations, the WP:NSCHOOL guideline was changed to deprecate WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so please disregard arguments based on the latter.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 02:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a valid reason to keep these article. It's existence is to be used as a guideline for AFD, as all the outcomes are. While it may be "deprecated", it has not been deleted, so remains a valid reason to keep the article. Even if it isn't WP:AQ, WP:BEFORE, and WP:BATHWATER also apply here. As does the need to reduce Systemic Bias; Sources for this school will take longer to find, but if we can prove WP:V, then courtesy and general consensus on reducing systemic bias says we at the very least post this school to the relevant wikiprojects and make sure that people from the area have had a chance to weigh in. Otherwise what we are left with is a wiki that heavily favors schools from western, English speaking countries, where sources are easily found via google. Egaoblai (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the recent trend of people highlighting their post with note to closing admin posts is silly and needs to be curbed. Every post here is a de facto note to the closing admin. Egaoblai (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Pretty sure anyone who would take on the trauma of an RfA has the skills to close an AfD, and doesn't need the advice of an editor with 1600 whopping edits. John from Idegon (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Eli Adzie[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography of non notable person. Regional chairman of non notable local organization, head of so-called "sports department" of local radio station. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:JOURNALIST completely. Article based on one unreliable blog source and his twitter account. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither local radio personalities nor communications directors of regional sports leagues get an automatic free notability pass just for existing — but the referencing here consists of one glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else, and one of his own self-published Twitter tweets. That does not add up to a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once in a while a local radio personality becomes notable, we may for example have an article on Ernie Harwell, but even truly memorable local radio personalities need to have very strong coverage. Here in metro-Detroit we had a meterologist who did very creative broadcasts for 50 years on the top news radio station of the area, and I think got a few awards for it, but his article was deleted. It might have survived if all published reports going back to the 1950s were easily findable by one-line searches. I am mentally kicking myself that I am blanking on his name. Oh that was it, Sonny Eliot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, on further reflection, I see why we have an article on Harwell. I didn't pay enough attention to the issues of the Tigers broadcasting world back in 1991 to have remembered how big an issue Harwell getting canned by the Tigers was, but now having read of it, I vaguely remember there was outrage. I do sense the article needs more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Radio personalities do not get that much publicity on the internet in Ghana as they do in other parts of the world (especially Europe and America) I've been listening to this man for 6 years now and he is actually popular in this area. Deleting this page on the basis of lack of adequate info and references will be harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.202.169 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh or not, having proper reliable source referencing is the measure of whether or not a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at all. Even in Europe and America, there is no such thing as notability in the absence of media coverage, and lots of people at Adzie's level of prominence who do not have the media coverage required to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Gabriel (politician)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a county commissioner and as yet non-winning candidate in a future state legislature election. As always, neither of these are claims of notability that get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves: state house candidates need to win the election and thereby hold the office to clear WP:NPOL #1, and otherwise qualify for articles only if they can be shown and properly sourced as already having already cleared a notability standard for some other reason independent of their candidacy, and county councillors are eligible for Wikipedia articles only if they can be well-sourced as significantly more notable than the norm. But the only references here are his own primary source biography on the self-published website of his own employer, which does not count as valid support for notability, and a raw table of election results. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the assembly seat, but nothing here is enough to already get him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- failure of WP:POLITICIAN, county commissioner is not notable and neither is congressional candidate.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create again if he wins the June 5 special election (which I consider highly likely but that is just my opinion). If someone wants to write a neutral, well-referenced article about that special election, then he can be covered there along with the other candidate, Republican Justin M. Clark. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, his county commissioner post is pretty trivial, as there are many such advisory commissions. If he was a member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, that would be a powerful claim of notability, since that five member body represents over ten million people. Los Angeles County is by far the most populous county in the United States, with more residents than 42 states. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom and Cullen; an article on the special election would be a good contribution. if someone starts one, I will change my iVote to Redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 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. No need to speedy an article that's about to be AfD'd ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corevity[edit]

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

A company profile on TechCrunch does not indicate notability, and it only seems to be mentioned in passing on one major news story. Elassint ^Hi 01:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for significant coverage in reliable independent sources was not successful. This company fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 : only purpose is to advertise an otherwise non-notable entity, there is nothing useful that could be saved in the article history either. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:48, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goethe-Institut, Ghana[edit]

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

Contested prod. According to the article on the parent organization Goethe-Institut, there are 159 branches that promote German culture and language. It appears that of the 159, there are two with articles - this one and another in New York. There is also a List of Goethe-Institut locations, which has a notability tag and lists countries/cities with branches, but no articles on the branches as they don't exist. No indication that the branch in Ghana alone meets GNG. Even the one in New York is completely unreferenced and also needs to be examined. MB 00:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BRANCH. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates why there should be an article just for the one in Ghana.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhulfiqar Al-Hchaimi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of our notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yadwinder Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:GNG because he is mentioned in several independent sources with good coverage.Stephreef (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG as a Google News] search affirms. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I'm not listing individual sources because there are so abundant. This subject clearly meets gng. Is it possible the nom failed to perform WP:BEFORE? Jacona (talk) 14:53, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sozhasingarayer Robinson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:GNG because he is mentioned in several independent sources with significant coverage.Stephreef (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Here's some examples of significant coverage in reliable sources: [35],[36],[37],[38].Jacona (talk) 14:58, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surendra Kumar Kataria[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjan Singh Cheema[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Dammit_steve (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Meets gng as winner of two major awards, as well as meeting gng a politician. This nomination shows no possible attempt at WP:BEFORE. [39]. Jacona (talk) 15:41, 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 merge to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Opinions are 3:6:3 for keep/merge/delete respectively, which indicates that merge is the most consensual position. The discussion indicates that there is content relevant to the main article that should be retained because it goes beyond the usual quotefarm of reaction articles. What to merge and how is a decision to be made through the editorial process. Sandstein 08:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal[edit]

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

I recently put this item at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and met with staunch opposition not only to this article's listing but to its very existence. One editor commented "These cruft filled 'reactions to' articles are a blight on Wikipedia. And there aren't significant updates meriting ongoing." A second opined "'Reaction' articles should be more than just quote farms which that one is. Reactions should only be included if there's actual 'actions' tied to it, just not strong words." I'm going to AfD to seek consensus to delete this article. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completing the deletion nomination for 92.29.28.146 per Talk:Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. No opinion on the merits. Huon (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reactions are sufficiently covered in Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I agree that most of this Reactions article consists of unnecessary quotes from everybody and their dog. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Whilst both can make a case for WP:N, we shouldn't make our readers have to navigate between two separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. It's a thoroughly bloated content fork of which at least 2/3 has little or nor encyclopedic value and much of what does is already found in the main article. Pro forma statements can be summarized in one or two sentences to the effect "there was widespread international condemnation over the incident blah blah blah..." . Diplomatic expulsions need to be covered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Listing every major national reaction is not appropriate material. Strip out the that are simply quotes and represent no action or other connection to the issue (this otherwise is a QUOTEFARM problem). Once that's stripped to the diplomatic stuff and key reactions from UK and Russia (principally the only countries with any say here), then that all merges fine into the other article. --Masem (t) 22:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Select merge This is similar to the "Reactions to..." articles on terrorist attacks that I nominated for deletion a few months ago and were ultimately deleted/merged. Strip the quote farm from this and focus on summarizing the diplomatic matters in the main article...where it belongs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 00:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 00:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 00:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major diplomatic event, and merging this into the main Poisoning article would clog it up with minute details about reactions from the major players (United Kingdom, Russia, United States, etc.), even if a lot of the fluff statements were removed. A better solution would be to just trim the current Reactions article of this fluff. ^Falling_Gravity 00:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Minute details" are not encyclopaedic content, nor are any "fluff statements". If it doesn't blong in the main article it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Minute details" are definitely encyclopaedic and worthy of inclusion if they're covered in multiple secondary sources, such as is the case here. ^Falling_Gravity 03:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being covered in multiple reliable secondary sources is a requirement for demonstrating notability, but that does not mean that everything covdered in such sources is notable. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:QUOTEFARM. We really should almost never have a "reactions to..." article about anything. If specific reactions are notable independently of the thing they are a reaction to they should have a section or article specifically about them, e.g. in this case there might be an article about the diplomatic expulsions. Most of the "reactions to" articles can be entirely summarised by "world leaders and other famous people expressed shock and sympathy and condemmned the perpetrators on twitter." Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said the fluff statements should be removed. ^Falling_Gravity 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But takeaway the fluff and you're not left with anywhere near enough for a standalone article - especially as most of what isn't fluff is already present in the main article. Some (perhaps most) of the quotations are educational, but virtually none of them are encyclopaedic - Wikiquote exists for precisely this reason. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the limited encyclopaedic prose that isn't already there, put the quotes on Wikiquote, and delete the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Mostly to Wikiquote. I had considered this previously but wasn't sure whether it would meet with strong opposition for such a lengthy article. Some of the content isn't even really appropriate for WQ. I mean, why should anyone care that tiny Luxembourg decided to take no immediate action. Or similarly, why Malta's official reaction was essentially "now that you mention it, we're actually too small to matter anyway". GMG ^talk 12:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quote farm. Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#Response from other countries and organisations is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 92.11.149.25 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally I do not support separate articles like this, but there is too much material for a merge, and the event is clearly of major historical importance. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That the event is of major historical importance is irrelevant to whether this content is encyclopaedic or not - and almost all of it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh...but saying it's not encyclopedic is not necessarily the same as saying it's not educational. I think a lot of it is educational; it just belong on Wikiquote. Having said that, even if there is a consensus for deletion, it would be helpful if the closer could either close as a temporary redirect, or temporary draftify to give time to drag content over to quote, so that us mere mortals can access the content. GMG^talk 01:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:Redirects are cheap; I've certainly no objection to a redirect being made, preserving the history so content can be salvaged for more appropriate locations/projects. It's such a high-profile event that there may well be links coming in to this from all kinds of places so a redirect will probably be needed indefinitely. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While the article clearly needs work, I don't think it merits deletion. And, as others have mentioned, there is far too much content for it to be merged.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 02:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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