The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trenton Technology[edit]

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

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

Obvious advertising is obvious. Available sources are weak at best. Mostly passing mentions and press releases. Some of the best of what's available is things like this, local coverage about routine business activities. The only possible redirect I see is PICMG but it too is poorly sourced and overall advertorial, and tangentially related to boot. Not sure it's worth it really. GMG^talk 23:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although not all of it is phrased like an ad, there are little sources. Not sure if it qualifies for WP:A7. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 00:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION. Acnetj (talk) 18:22, 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Webb (composer)[edit]

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

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

The major author of this article is the subject. It cites only one independent source, which is a mere namecheck. Google doesn't provide much more. I don't think there are sufficient non-trivial independent sources for a biography. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet any notability criteria. Livilnius (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Acnetj (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Search tools produce nothing...but a link to the article. Ergo, delete. Tapered (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking independent sourcing. Oops I did it again (talk) 22:35, 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. I'm not averse to undeleting if further sourcing emerges or it becomes NOTTOOSOON Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Dameron[edit]

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

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

Non notable director. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other criteria Livilnius (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the nominator, this lacks notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep her movie Different Flowers is clearly notable with reviews in lots of major papers such as here in the New York Times.Her article is where the movie is covered for now. If there were an article on the film that might be sufficient as a merge target but this combined article is what we're working with at the moment and deletion would be inappropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as this seems to barely meet criteria. It'd've been a regular Keep were it not for WP:TOOSOON's Damocles sword. -The Gnome (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very doubtful. Deb (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 20:30, 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. Quite apart from any consideration of notability, the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet: See CSD G5. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Science Protests[edit]

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

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

First, I get no hits for "Brazilian Science Protest" so this is poorly named to begin with, but the one article about this specific protest does not mention the March for Science as the protest occurred in 2016. This is OR in an attempt to justify the significance of this one event. Brazil's actions could be included at March for Science if other articles available tie recent happenings in Brazil to the "March for Science movement", but these Science mag and NPR articles from after the March for Science occurred don't even mention it. Rhinopias (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: my text "does not mention the March for Science" is in reference to an older version which was changed after the nomination. Rhinopias (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sure there's protests but this isn't a thing of notability, yet. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's a notable topic here but the article may be better moved to 2017 Brazil science budget cuts - I don't think this article has anything to do with March for Science and it looks like it has been improved since the nomination. Additional sources attesting to notability:
  • zdnet
  • cambridge - threaten future of research
  • cbc - brazil's scientists leaving country
  • continued converage in October 2017
  • more continued coverage in October

Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:06, 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. Clear consensus that the article satisfies GNG. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation Credit Union[edit]

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

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

I initially PROD'd this, but the references were improved, so I'm letting the community decide. The references added appear to be routine coverage, and to non-reliable sources. Admittedly, the Battlefords Now write-up seems pretty solid, but even with that, it falls short of corporate notability requirements. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I approved this as a notable topic. Credit Unions are a much bigger deal in Canada, often one of the primary financial institutions in their trading area, unlike in the US. This particular credit union was half of a Supreme Court of Canada case Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union which gives it additional coverage beyond what regular long standing credit unions get. Credit Unions are also regulated amd deposits insured so there is RS coverage there far beyond typical private businesses. I'm sure with some searching many many reliable sources going back many years can be brought forward for this topic and its predecessor organizations. Remember this is a 50,000 member owned organization with a long history - surely there is some corporate spam that is more pressing to delete. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited, being involved in a federal law suit doesn't make the subject automatically notable. I also don't see how "50,000 member owned organization with a long history" qualifies it under WP:NCORP. If you feel there's more coverage out there, I implore you to add it to the article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources per WP:GNG, including Battlefords Now, Prairie Post, Battlefords News-Optimist. MarginalCost (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my nomination, I agree the Battlefords Now write-up is descent coverage, the other two seem to fall under routine coverage. Both the other articles discuss the same topic, the vote for them to become federal, as opposed to coverage about the subject itself. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough coverage to claim GNG for a keep. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind sharing your thoughts on why? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per the original commentary that approved the page, many Canadian credit unions have pages, including Coast Capital Savings, Envision Financial, VanCity, Meridian Credit Union, Conexus Credit Union, Libro Credit Union, Connect First Credit Union, etc. There is also a List of banks and credit unions in Canada. mattwayn (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. There seems to be some confusion between being "involved in a federal lawsuit" and being a title party in a precident setting Supreme Court of Canada case. This organization's three main counterparts all have articles as well. 50,000 owners is not insignificant but on par with many public companies. Naming rights to a WHL arena, long history that generates press over time, plenty of community sponsorships and donations all add to GNG. I'm sure if one dug in the newspaper archives there would be stories about the credit union going back many years. I don't have any affiliation with ICU but I know how it works for similar credit unions around me. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors and I have added more sources. The CU holds naming rights for the life of the facility for a 4 part facility in North Battleford as well as the hockey/curling arena in Swift Current. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PC Engine Best Collection[edit]

PC Engine Best Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable video game compilation series. I can't find any RS, mostly just stores. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  21:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 00:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Wolfson5 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmileDirectClub[edit]

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

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

Not sure why we kept this the first time. The other discussion is not picked up by the software, as the company had a different name then: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmileCareClub. Per the talk page, this has been subject to an absurd amount of what appears to be UPE or COI editing. Bad refs, including lots of SPS, and the branded pictures! And promotional language. Even if others think the refs are sufficient per NCORP this needs to be rewritten from scratch based on independent, good quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:G11. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 00:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Changes from editors in question have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaebods (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The minor changes from editors in question have been removed. Editor has also disclosed relation to SmileDirectClub as instructed by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.58.145.100 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, should have been speedied. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The minor changes from editors in question have been removed. Additionally, it looks like this article is all factual and provides correct information about the company. Even if it was written by the company, should that matter? The most important thing is that the information is correct, and I don't think that anyone outside the company could do a better job of that or provide nearly as much content, anyway. There doesn't seem to be any self promotion to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.24.182.162 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It appears that representatives of the company made edits to correct and clarify inaccurate information about the company and the aligner therapy treatment. That’s not promotion but factual information. To take it down for making those clarifications and corrections seems overly aggressive and discriminatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.13.82 (talk) 17:55, 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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Bear[edit]

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

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

Non-notable character  GILO   A&E⇑  20:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:A7 startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 20:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  21:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  21:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Violates WP:MADEUP at the very least. Might not make the bar for a speedy, but I suspect it'll be a snow. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a BEFORE search brought up nothing. SportingFlyer talk 14:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The videos don't even have 200 views. Swissarmysalad (talk) 04:50, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe-A-BULL[edit]

Breathe-A-BULL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unencyclopedic stuff. Deletion contested –Ammarpad (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pppery: You should contest the deletion here too. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to contest the deletion here, as my involvement was purely procedural. "Unencyclopedic news" is not one of wikipedia's strict criteria for speedy deletion. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know it is unencyclopedic and can never be retained but you are being compulsively formalistic on something you don't have ability to do. It was deleted a such before. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Wikipedia does not have a speedy delete criterion to cover this, but we can ignore all rules and make the rapid determination that one campus' smoking regulations are not the proper material for an entire encyclopedia article. These are not ground-breaking rules that have been the topic of widespread press coverage because of their radical departure from some norms. The author had claimed when contesting the original speedy deletion that "This page is made to inform the public about USF's tobacco and smoke-free policy. As part of my class project was to add to a Wikipedia page with reliable information you have and presenting it. Therefore I have done such and continue to add over the week with reliable information and sources to back it all up." Clearly, an academic assignment where the teacher failed to properly educate the students on the proper uses of Wikipedia. I've informed the author that they and their teacher should refer to WP:SUP. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I would usually advocate a merge for a topic like this, it just doesn't have a place in the USF article letalone a whole article. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial and reads like an essay piece. Clearly not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivia, not encyclpedic, WP:NOTNEWS, take your choice....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepali newspapers in New York[edit]

List of Nepali newspapers in New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A list article where not a single one of the entries in the list is notable, i.e. has an article here on en-WP, or even is likely to ever get one, "sourced" only to the non-notable entities themselves... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from Tom's points, the article was apparently created by an undisclosed paid editor, see User talk:HariKrishna123. I suppose it's sourced to the non-notable papers themselves, as Tom says; both the footnotes are 404. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Because the notability of the newspapers themselves is at best suspect, a list of them holds even less notability - an effect not unlike the multiplication of fractions. I also note that the only two "sources" in the article are both dead links. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This might be worth brief mention in Nepali culture in New York but does not merit a stand alone article. The fact that article does not exist tells us that this is putting the cart before the horse at best. The larger topic article needs to be created first. Weather there are enough reliable sources to create that article I do not know. I have to say that a lot of our article on immigrants groups are very weak and rarely based on sources that have studied the topic in a deep and expansive way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 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) 03:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dikpal Karki[edit]

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

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

Article about a male beauty pageant contestant with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources to prove any kind of notability, as required by WP:GNG, only mentions on beauty pageant fan sites and similar. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not at all notable for winning such a minor, non-notable beauty pageant.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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B'Ginnings[edit]

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

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

Article deleted in previous AfD with only one !vote for Keep by Evangp. That user then created this article three months later stating they had "removed fluff" so it at least makes a claim to not be CSD:G4. The only source added in this version that is significanlty about the nightclub is a Wordpress blog entry from the local library. All other sources are at best passing mentions. WP:BEFORE discloses no significant coverage. No evidence this qualifies under the general notability guideline or under any applicable subject-specific notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Many famous bands played this club. Evangp (talk)

• Keep I created the article that was deleted. I am one of the many, many thousands of Wikipedia contributors who nonetheless have many other interests and responsibilities and cannot monitor and "guard" my articles. Props to those who have little else in their life, or have hours a day to devote to Wikipedia. Maybe I will someday. In any event, I am just now seeing that, rather rapidly, an article that had existed for years was deleted, apparently on the initiative of less than a handful of persons.

I believe it is wrong to delete something simply because it is uninteresting to some. B'Ginnings was at least as important as any of many articles I could cite that some of the "pro-delete" faction have authored or contributed to, such as a restaurant that has been open for less than a decade in Chicago. The principal importance of B'Ginnings -- other than being the project of a legitimate rock star, Danny Seraphine -- was that it was one of the VERY FEW venues even available to see rock and roll during its existence, and thus it played an important part in increasing acts' access to a very major (yet very controlled and hard-to-crack) market.

If B'Ginnings had ONLY been the first place that Tom Petty ever played in Chicago it would be significant. Yet a glance at the now-deleted list of acts who played there -- which, as I recall, was admittedly an amateurish scroll (I did not add that feature to he article, others did, attesting to the importance the venue had for a generation) shows that Seraphine and ownership too chances on bringing a number of not-yet-headliners there. The critical role of such "incubator" clubs in artists' careers, and in changing the tastes of the larger audience by exposure to acts they might otherwise not have seen, cannot be overstated.

Chicago mainstream press and radio was in the 1970s considerably more conservative than, say, NY arts media. Relatively speaking, punk was ignored, New Wave was ignored, wavy-power-pop bands struggled to get any airplay and attention. By definition, rock and roll has always had an underground aspect, and punk, again by definition, especially so. Part of music history is simply to chronicle, then let others draw conclusions. Part of the special value of Wikipedia is to allow such chronicling. There are few contemporaneous accounts of many early Delta blues masters; some R&B and jazz artists barely exist in memory or recorded history, yet were very important. There is something disturbing and wrong, arrogant and judgmental, about the creeping overuse of "notability" as thin veil for a difference of taste (at best) or censorship (at worst).

Obscurity is not the same thing as not being notable. Notability has to do with importance, not with fame. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes People magazine. This venue -- again, one of the few midsized venues in Chicagoland at the time, as well as one of the VERY FIRST in the suburbs, and an important milestone in the development of Schaumburg and The Land Beyond O'Hare as more than just Home of Woodfield, see the post at https://ourlocalhistory.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/only-the-beginning-of-the-nightlife-scene-in-schaumburg/, which as the blog of a unit of local government by a professional researcher is, I would submit, a reliable and credible source -- has at least the historic importance of Victoria's Secret Models of 2000-2009. I mean, really. Come on.

The 1970s and 1980s -- the decades immediately predating the Internet -- are very poorly documented online. They were so recent at the WWW's inception that, it seemed, no one saw need to chronicle and archive. Predating millennials' birth, they are deemed unimportant. So there is an Internet bias, and thus a source bias, against many content areas that are, nonetheless, important.

It does disrespect to fellow Wikipedians delete when, clearly, an article is not the vanity work of one person but the type of collective contribution that a forum like this should promote. The smug dismissal of contributors as "fanboys" is needlessly rude. As I recall -- and it's been a while since I visited -- the article had attracted much interest, of which the long laundry list of acts persons had posted serves as evidence. While I did not add the "list" that existed here, I have in fact used the content in it that others posted as a useful reference a couple times over those years. Isn't that why we have encyclopedias, as reference works? A better course would have been to improve the article. Or to mentor some of the contributors in how they could make it better, or become more polished Wikipedians. And I would have liked to have been invited to the conversation more directly.

I thank Evangp for the reinstatement. I will try to flesh out the article. If anyone has a cached version, that would be of use, and I would be grateful.Popsup (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. @Evangp and Popsup:, those two responses together hit pretty much every one of the "keep" arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I encourage you both to read that document and the Notability content guidelines In particular, the claim: "Notability has to do with importance, not with fame" is completely wrong here. The general notability guideline provides more information. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Meets the GNG easily. See Illinois Club's Switch To AOR... in Billboard, and another Billboard article, and an entry from a guide in Chicago Magazine. The club is also mentioned in various rock bios. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG some modest sources exist such as This librarian/historian blog and Billboard + some aforementioned links.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merely having notable acts perform there doesn't transfer notability to the venue. An AfD that is relevant would be WP:Articles for deletion/Alrosa Villa. In that case, the venue was the scene of the murder of a notable person. It had other notable bands play there, but the venue itself wasn't notable. Mentions in guides, non-RS blogs or minor local coverage don't get it past the bar. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon review of the two mentions in Billboard, they appear trivial. There is an article about the club, but it's on a "general club news" part of the magazine. Other sources are mentions. The blog here [1] is probably the best source, but I don't think it passes GNG on its own as there's not much else out there in terms of reliable sources. SportingFlyer talk 05:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Fails WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 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. Fairly good consensus to keep. Arguments against were that there didn't seem to be much in depth coverage. Arguments for included asserting notability through several sources and a new set of notability crteria from WikiProject Chess. That particular set of criteria assumes GNG is met on this article, although does not have the status of SNG. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Aliaga Fernández[edit]

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

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

A procedural nomination, I'm neutral on the outcome. This person meets the recently-established WP:NCHESS by having won the women's Peruvian Chess Championship. However, she never achieved the rank of Grandmaster (the older chess notability rule-of-thumb), nor do I see sufficient non-statistical references for this to pass via WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I did a pretty good search for sources. Her name comes up in crosstables, and in news blips about tournament results, but unfortunately there doesn't look to be much by way of in-depth coverage (or much coverage at all unless we just wanted to compile a list of tournaments she has played in/won). E.g. [2] [3] [4] and then coverage in articles that seem more about Deysi Cori -- not sure why she received more coverage for her win than Aliaga did? (e.g.). Then there are a few questionable and/or primary sources, but even still there's no much to go by. To me this highlights an issue with NCHESS #2/#3 (being directly related) -- chess is played just about everywhere, and the coverage of winners of national championships doesn't reliably get a lot of in-depth reliable press coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Peru is not like Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands, they have several grandmasters (e.g. Julio Granda Zuniga) so winning the Peruvian Women's championship and being the number 2 rated woman player in Peru is no trivial achievement. Competing in a women's world championship should be enough to get her over the line. Also, without going too deeply into the links, I get a lot of hits when I search on "Ingrid Aliaga" (the usual shortened form of her name). Most of them are in Spanish of course but that's perfectly ok. Article can be improved of course, citing Mark Weeks is not ideal but there's no reason to believe the information is false. The English (written by a non-native speaker) obviously needs cleaning up too. I don't see how it would improve the encyclopedia to delete this and break the links from Peruvian Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship 2010 and Women's World Chess Championship 2012. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @MaxBrowne: Could you link to some of the sources you found? I also searched for Ingrid Aliaga and looked through the non-English sources and did not come up with enough. Meeting one of the criteria for chess players does not, of course, give anyone a free pass -- it's an indication of who's probably notable, not a guarantee (we still need some in depth coverage in reliable sources). I would love to switch over to keep, but we need more than just the fact that she won a title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found an old interview with her, she was a promising junior who got her WFM title at 13 but appears to have curtailed the chess for several years to concentrate on study. She gets a fair amount of coverage in Peruvian and other Latin American sources (e.g. fideamerica.com) and IMO playing in a Women's World Championship alone is good enough to justify notability. In general I think User:Uldis s is doing a great job of countering the systemic WP:BIAS of the English wikipedia's chess coverage by creating articles for players who have not received much attention in English language sources. There is a big Pan-American chess scene which is poorly covered on the internet in general, and on wikipedia in particular. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Combination of FIDE title + multiple wins of a national championship + Olympiad appearances, constitutes good notability in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Maybe a good case study in whether/how often a WikiProject's notability guidelines can supersede WP:N/WP:GNG (and/or whether that, combined with the non-English nature of most of the sources, provide a good enough reason to give the subject the benefit of the doubt). Arguments about titles, appearances, etc. should indicate that someone is notable in the sense of having significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They don't confer notability unless we ignore GNG. (I must have missed the discussion leading to NCHESS, and certainly don't agree with the wording "presumed notable", which NSPORTS also uses) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at WP:CHESS here and here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know. I commented in the first one, expressing that it should indicate what's notable and missing the language "presumed notable" -- I guess I just missed where it was implemented. I notice that Cobblet expressed something similar regarding relation to GNG, so I suspect this isn't actually intended to supplant the GNG and thus, again, titles, tournaments, etc. are only indicators of notability -- we still need sources when GNG is challenged. So far the best source is a brief interview published by the department of sport (not typically ideal to go to government sports agencies for neutral reporting of coverage of its own athletes). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "presumed" comes from GNG itself. Cobblet (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Contra closing comment I believe there is community consensus to accept wikiproject notability guidelines that are adopted after due process, which this one clearly was. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't understand Sandstein's objection. Does he think that no other sports notability guidelines began as WikiProject discussions?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of people at a WikiProject cannot decide to throw out WP:GNG in favor of their own criteria when that criteria claims as notable articles which are not notable according to any actual policies/guidelines. That's part of the difference between being something a couple people added to a WikiProject page and something that has strong consensus to be a guideline. This very AfD is an example of why the criteria at WP:NCHESS would have no chance to gain such consensus. Of course, since individual AfDs depend more on who attends them, it will probably be kept nonetheless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is throwing out GNG - these criteria merely indicate that in this case, she may met GNG by winning her national championship. Of course the sources may be offline and not in English. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Winning a national championship is enough to establish notability.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This blog reproduces an interview with Aliaga in El Peruano, and links to a different interview of hers in Perú.21, which no longer appears to be available online. There are also interviews of her on YouTube, e.g. [5], [6]. GM Slipak commented on some of her games in his daily round reports at the 2017 Women's Continental Championship: [7], [8], [9]. We can probably find even better coverage if we dig more deeply (for instance, this says a little bit more about Aliaga than the first source currently used in the article), but I think what we've already found is sufficient to constitute significant coverage. Cobblet (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in response to Sandstein: WikiProject guidelines that are accepted by the community (throught discussions like this one) generally are accepted in place of GNG, especially when people that meet those guidelines usually meet GNG as well. In this case, as the SNG was created very recently and hasn't been tested, it would be a circular argument to keep merely per the SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brian Sandoval. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Teipner Sandoval[edit]

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

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

Being the spouse of a US Governor doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and I don't see sufficient coverage about her specifically to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How come there's an article for Anne Gust, Sharon Davis (wife of Gray Davis), and Judith Dean (wife of Howard Dean)? Similarly, there should be an article for Kathleen Tiepner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LudicrousEditor (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist".104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page you quoted from also says "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else" as Bill Shakespeare once said - "Mark you this, Bassanio, The Devil can cite Wikipedia policy for his purpose". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Brian Sandoval. I don't think there's enough to write a detailed biography, but certainly enough to pop a paragraph in her ex-husband's. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Brian Sandoval. See above. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric kingdom[edit]

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

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

This upcoming Steam game from a non-notable publisher seems to fail WP:NSOFT as it does not have coverage from significant third-party news sources. Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass notability criteria. Natureium (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not going to pass WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't review these (at work), but here are some WP:VG/RS: PCGamer 1, JeuxVideo 1, PCGamer 2, Gamepro 1. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even after viewing the sources, it is WP:TOOSOON. Wait until more significant mentions appear and the article can be re-created._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it looks pretty official, lots of info here on gameplay, there're already teaser trailers out there, and there's a demo on Steam. I just think it needs a little bit of expansion is all. As for news sources, here's one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agreeing with Lee Vilenski, article as it stands now, has a low chance of satisfying WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Woefully fails notability. No independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Mall[edit]

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

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

Lacking any significant coverage from secondary sources. Only "sources" are stores at that mall. Septrillion (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep The Jax Daily Record story is secondary coverage, and indicates that thee is history here. I rather suspect that thee are moe sources out there, perhaps offline. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added several citations. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interactivo Gulf[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORG - only 1 ref and that does not mention the company, I can't find any of value to add. The website http://www.interactivo-gulf.com appears to have been taken over as a spam site. Created by a single purpose account. KylieTastic (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: They do web development and SEO: WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Their founder does showjumping: WP:NOTINHERITED whatever his prowess in that field. Nothing provided or found to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 18:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anitha Pauldurai[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. There are many newspaper articles about her. E.g. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/others/anitha-pauldurai-named-assistant-coach-of-indian-u-16-basketball-team/articleshow/61087406.cms Ross-c (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Passes WP:GNG. See above.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Looks like WP:NBASKETBALL includes 14 men's leagues and 1 women's league worldwide. Weird. Hmlarson (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NBASKETBALL should be updated to include the women's leagues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect that for WP:NBASKETBALL to be updated with more women's leagues, then first it has to be established that the wast majority of players in those women's leagues pass WP:GNG. EuroLeague Women might be the biggest women's league after the WNBA but I'm not sure that every player that has played there would pass WP:GNG. Awards winners and major statical leaders might qualify though so it could be included under #3 WP:NBASKETBALL. Dammit_steve (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Dammit_steve (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Yet again, nominator has failed to do WP:BEFORE. Might be time for some action. Smartyllama (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Passes WP:GNG. The article just has some easily fixable issues. Cesdeva (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a sportsperson who has represented her country. The WP:NBASKETBALL criteria seem to make it impossible for a player from India to be considered notable, which can't be right. PamD 12:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets gng, nominator has nominated numerous indian basketball articles for deletion with an obvious failure to perform WP:BEFOREJacona (talk) 15:28, 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P S Jeena[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep captain of India's national team. Meets WP:GNG per US-based Google News search. Article could use expansion and more referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a sportsperson who has represented her country. The WP:NBASKETBALL criteria seem to make it impossible for a player from India to be considered notable, which can't be right. PamD 12:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs some more information but meets guidelines Bwabwa7 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepClearly meets gng, sportscrit as a member of national team. While it may be difficult to find sources in English, we must avoid WP:BIAS against non US/UK subjects.Jacona (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG. He was the captain of the national team for crying out loud. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akanksha Singh[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GNG met. WP:NBASKETBALL includes one women's league based in the United States - not sure why it would be considered relevant here. Article could use cleanup, expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources in the article are enough to get it over WP:GNG. Yet again, nominator has failed to do the least bit of WP:BEFORE. May be time for some action. Smartyllama (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources do not meet any reasonable interpretation of GNG. The notability guidelines for basketball only include one women's league because that is the only women's league where playing grants notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a sportsperson who has represented her country. The WP:NBASKETBALL criteria seem to make it impossible for a player from India to be considered notable, which can't be right. PamD 12:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PamD: WP:NBASKETBALL is only a guideline to which sports figures are likely to meet the basic critera due to the popularity of the league they played in. Players who do not pass it can easily pass the basic criteria if there are enough of reliable and in depth sources about them. Dammit_steve (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG Bwabwa7 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's been on her national team (And the second largest country in the world no less!) for 14 years, and is the captain!!! Clearly meets WP:GNG Jacona (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as captain of the girls's national team, meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:13, 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) GSS (talk|c|em) 18:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiba Maggon[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use improved referencing, cleanup and expansion per WP:ATD.Hmlarson (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a sportsperson who has represented her country. The WP:NBASKETBALL criteria seem to make it impossible for a player from India to be considered notable, which can't be right. PamD 12:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG Bwabwa7 (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets gng, nominator has nominated numerous articles for deletion with an obvious failure to perform WP:BEFOREJacona (talk) 15:27, 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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appoorva Muralinath[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources in the article are enough to meet WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the sources show the substantial, more than routine coverage we need to show a person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a sportsperson who has represented her country. The WP:NBASKETBALL criteria seem to make it impossible for a player from India to be considered notable, which can't be right. PamD 11:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could use some cleaning up but meets guidelines. There are so many more less notable American athletes on Wikipedia not up for deletion Bwabwa7 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, meets gng.Jacona (talk) 15:23, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Mason (neo-Nazi)[edit]

James Mason (neo-Nazi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very few citations, google returns few independent reliable sources. Person is not likely notable enough to warrant an article. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx)))} 17:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep -- First of all, "No actual reason given for deletion." The number of citations is irrelevant. The number of GHits is irrelevant. If nom only thinks notability is "not likely" then it's not likely time to nominate yet. Secondly, this person is exceedingly notable. An easy pass of the GNG. He is discussed in George Lincoln Rockwell's bio, in Black Sun, an immensely important history of neo-Nazism, and here, and more recently in connection with the killers of Blaze Bernstein and atomwaffen [10], [11], [12]. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sourced, notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Weak Delete we wouldn't keep a person with this type of profile in a mainstream political party; I don't see a reason to have looser standards for fringe figures. If Siege magazine is notable, it should have an entry of its own; I don't feel the voluminousness of a fringe publication makes this person notable. The coverage in "The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right" (linked above) might be enough to meet GNG, but I don't think it's enough on its own, and am not convinced by any of the other sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Siege" material is very influential in the neo-Nazi community. That doesn't make it palatable, but it does make it, and its author, notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject has been well publicized and is sufficiently notable to have his papers archived in a library at the University of Kansas and to have his writings sold on Amazon.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:42, 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) 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Lambert (writer)[edit]

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

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

Popose delete and salt of related titles. Article is a recreation of Andrea Lambert (previously deleted per AfD and G5). The sources are allmost all links to writing by Lambert herself. The article is probably a recreation of Andrea Lambert. See the page logs for that page here Not sure why Qolpeder has access to content created by blocked sockpuppet Evlekis, but the article may qualify for deletion under speedy criterion G5: Creations by banned or blocked users. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Lambert That AfD is so old however, that G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion does not apply. Given the creation history and the sockpuppetry I'm bringing the article to AfD for discussion. Vexations (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To be fair, I'll note that as an administrator I'm able to view deleted pages, so I can confirm that this version is not a verbatim copy of the previously deleted version — it still isn't really doing a better job of properly demonstrating or sourcing her notability than the previous version did, but neither the body nor the sourcing are a straightforward copy of the prior version. But this is a virtually perfect example of what Wikipedia:Citation overkill refers to as a "notability bomb": editors trying so hard to make a person appear more notable than she really is that they'll throw every conceivable reference they can get their hands on into the mix to get the number of footnotes into the 40s or 50s, but the sources are complete garbage if anybody actually analyzes them. This is not referenced to reliable source coverage about her, but to primary sources, pieces of her own writing, event calendars, and sources which tangentially verify the existence of a literary anthology without even mentioning Lambert's existence at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you reference a writer as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As noted in Citation Overkill, "an article with just four or five really good sources is considered better referenced than an article that cites 20 or 30 weak ones." Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone, only notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 14:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HeadKrack[edit]

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

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

Not seeing a lot of notability, but some very iffy sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He is one of quite a few co-hosts of a marginally notable TV show. Also, apparently he went to school. That's not notable. Also, exactly zero independent references. Yes, I counted them. Twice. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are articles about him on google [13] [14] [15]. They weren't hard to find. Szzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those noted above (LA Sentinel and Dallas Observer). FloridaArmy (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in the article even tries to make a claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) for anything, and none of the sourcing shown so far is cutting it. The LA Sentinel source shown above is not independent third party coverage about him, but merely leads to a YouTube clip of him speaking about himself in a Q&A interview, so it doesn't support notability at all — people get over GNG by being the subject of coverage written by other people, not by talking about themselves or other things in Q&A interviews — and RapZilla is a blog, not a reliable source. So the only reference that isn't a complete non-starter right off the bat is the Dallas Observer — but that's a local alt-weekly, so while it would be acceptable as one source within a mix of more solid sourcing than anybody has actually been able to show, it does not bring the GNG all by itself as an article's only valid source. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better — but he needs more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a lead in two nationally syndicated shows he meets notability guidelines and he is noted extensively in LOTS of sources in addition to those noted above. He's a feature of Atlanta influencers and is very popular. Not even a borderline case. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead? Are you sure about that? Dish Nation lists him as one of 7 co-hosts and the show seems to be only just about notable itself. Then here is the Rickey Smiley Morning Show which doesn't even have an article. It redirects to its actual host, who is Rickey Smiley not HeadKrack. If you can show significant coverage by reliable sources to prove notability then that could swing the whole thing towards a "keep" but that Dallas Observer reference you added, while a small step in the right direction, is nothing like significant coverage on its own as it is just one paragraph in an article that is mostly about other people. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a whole lot more than a paragraph. And Wikipedia is missing articles on lots of subjects regarding African Americans. His lead roles on very notable and long running shows as well as the media cpverage he's received make him notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than a paragraph, yes. But it's still the only reliable source that has been shown at all, so it doesn't make him pass WP:GNG all by itself. We require a lot more than just one acceptable source before we deem a person notable, if he doesn't have any "inherent" notability claim (like being the newly elected president of a country) strong enough to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines; frankly, I think I would have axed this on csd-a7 grounds if it hadn't been for the afd message. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:15, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Me (Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui song)[edit]

Back to Me (Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Could go back to redirection. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with kudos to the team that put together the fawning text, but the subject fails WP:NSONG, plain and simple. -The Gnome (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The song is released as a single from the album Act One by Marian Hill.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to overstate the case but the WP:NSONG criteria are as follows. The song must have been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts; has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award; or has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. And, as the text says, a song's charting "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. Emphasis added. "Play it cool / But I see through it " :-) -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Charted in Spain, meets NSONG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:05, 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 speedy delete. Obvious promo by undeclared paid editor blocked after warning about spamming Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moot (app)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, largely unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant advertising of non notable company. The user also crated Moot Rewards; their absolutely non notable business program, so as to further the promotion. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some observation -I will like to further note one thing. Whenever the page is tagged for deletion, the author will put ((db-author)), so that it will be seen as less serious deletion and easily refunded. This has happended twice on Moot Technologies where the page was originally created. And after some time, the author simply requested refund, it currently exist in draft Draft:Moot Technologies after such "refund". Even on this title, they tried this trick, see it, so as to scuttle this AfD and easily request "refund". The current author is either evading block placed on EmmanuelOlilo (talk · contribs) or is coordinating things with him. The contents of all the versions are viewable through filter log and shows similitude beyond coincidence –Ammarpad (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, not enough coverage about the company and no indicator of why it is notable among shopping apps.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The references offered on this WP:SPA article are no more than typical start-up propositional coverage. I added the company name and the shifting name of its product to the "Find sources" above, but am finding nothing to indicate attained encyclopaedic notability whether by WP:CORPDEPTH on the company or WP:GNG on its app. AllyD (talk) 06:29, 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) 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farkas Bethlen (born 1957)[edit]

Farkas Bethlen (born 1957) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable politician, mayor of a Hungarian village Staszek Lem (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mayors of small villages do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, he would need to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to be deemed significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places this size. But apart from his own self-published website, the only other source shown here is a family genealogy, which is not evidence of notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if a place is called a village, pretty much the mayor is never notable. There is no other even remote claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 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. Fairly strong consensus to keep, with only the nom. supporting deletion. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Wood (British businessman)[edit]

Tony Wood (British businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established by article. Only appointed as Chief Executive of Meggitt in 2018 so has been in the role 4 months max and prior to that had not held CEO or Chairman roles in any other business. On that basis I would say it's too soon for an article here Uhooep (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- "No actual reason given for deletion." It's not the business of the article to establish notability, it's the business of the sources found by the nominator during WP:BEFORE. In this case there are plenty. See Reuters, The Times, The Telegraph. Could go on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is the CEO of a FTSE-250 UK company, a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, and there is enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CEO of a FTSE-250 UK with over £2 billion in annual revenues, former senior management at Rolls Royce, and MBA from INSEAD Business School, aligned on WP:GNG, though article can still be expanded as is rightly happening. Simone2049 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unanimous to 'keep', with votes in a row. I would recommend AfD on page is removed, and notice placed on article to edit and improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone2049 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Wong (pageant)[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER B dash (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete coming third place in a Hong Kong pageant is not a claim of notability, and I see no other claim of notability. The refs are all in Chinese and are trivial coverage of her in the context of the pageant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coming in 3rd place in any beauty pageant is not a sign of notability, in a beauty pageant for a city-state even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 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 (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) ATZNA 07:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Jones (Welsh footballer)[edit]

Ian Jones (Welsh footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has been propsed for speedy deletion before, I thought it should be deleted through AfD instead. The article is rather a waste and I even tried to expand or fix the article but there is no sources at all to provide any verification on him passing WP:FOOTY or GNG. Thanks. I have now read the new sources added and I change my !vote to Keep if the article is about this player. Thanks. ATZNA 20:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 14:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No source for BLP. @ATZNA: Next time, please use WP:BLPPROD for unsourced BLP directly. No need to post to AfD. (both will delete after 7 days). Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepHas added source and pass WP:NFOOTY as above. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Hhhhhkohhhhh, Yes, I noticed that, I felt the article can possibly pass if any of you finds sources to provide verification, that is why I brought it to AfD. I'll have it in mind for the future for sure anyways. Thanks. ATZNA 15:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ATZNA: Better to post to AfD or PROD after having a source. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was, and is, already tagged for BLP PROD, there was no need to do anything, except search for sources if one wants to improve the article. AfD is not cleanup, ATZNA, and articles should not be brought here if one does not want them deleted (or possibly merged or redirected). The relevant sports WikiProject might be a good place to ask for help in finding sources, if any exist. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete UNLESS sources are found that establish Notability. I looked and did not find any when I tagged it for BLPPROD, but I am not very knowledgeable in this subject area. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  See new view below. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Fails GNG and NFooty. Govvy (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tjose Those are reasons to delete, but not to speedy delete, an article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DESiegel: @Govvy:, you may wish to revisit the article following changes I made (mentioned below)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Upon new evidence provided, also, @DESiegel: What does Tjose mean? Govvy (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I will look over the new evidence and reconsider. That is why I wrote "unless" in my opinion above. Govvy, "Tjose " was a typo for "Those". Corrected above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this Ian Jones would meet NFOOTY and doesn't seem to have any other article at present. On the assumption that this is the player the article creator intended to write about, I have added some more content............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If the article is to remain about the footballer that ChrisTheDude has added information for then he meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Please read this. Note I am the author of this AfD. Done ATZNA 20:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Now seems to pass NFOOTBALL, although sources are quite few for a BLP. Definately needs additional work, but that is not a reason to delete. View above struck. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:56, 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) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moslem Bakhshayesh[edit]

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

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

Authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. none of the book is notable (at least by WP Standards).. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but I was unable to find any coverage in independent RS so fails GNG as well. For what its worth, no entry exists on Persian WP. Saqib (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is by a new editor who has made no other edits. No sources on the page. claim is that he has three books one each in 2016, 2017 and 2018. However, my search on "Moslem Bakhshayesh" produced nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Rhodes[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP: POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It does not fail WP:POLITICIAN. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable under it. He has gotten major coverage by Politico, Huffington Post, and Roll Call. Great Great Grandson (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment There has also been a New York Times Article about Gareth Rhodes. If that is not a major news story, I do not know what is. Great Great Grandson (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not about Gareth Rhodes. It is about the seven different candidates running for the same seat as Gareth Rhodes. Is there any (non-local) news coverage in which Gareth Rhodes is the subject of the article? Peacock (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::: Yes. There Is a Politico story cited in the article that is specifically about Gareth Rhodes Great Great Grandson (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now find several more articles like that. A candidate does not magically vault from "run of the mill" to "special case" just because one piece of coverage exists beyond his own district's local media — it still takes several more substantive pieces of nationalized coverage, not just one, to make a candidacy special. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then he has to win the election and thereby hold the seat, not just run as a candidate, to become notable as a politician. But this demonstrates no strong claim of preexisting notability, and the existence of some campaign-related coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG pass for a candidate either, because every candidate can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage. His district is in the immediate suburbs and exurbs of New York City itself, further, so the fact that one of the sources here is in The New York Times does not make his candidacy special — it just represents the expected local coverage in his local media, not evidence that his candidacy is storming the national notability ramparts — and at any rate, that source is not about him per se, but simply mentions his name in the process of being fundamentally an overview about all of the challengers vying in the Democratic primary, so it doesn't single Rhodes out as a special case over and above Antonio Delgado or Brian Flynn or Patrick Ryan or Erin Collier or David Clegg or Jeff Beals. And at any rate, NPOL #2's provision for "major local political figures" is about mayors and city councillors and county supervisors, not unelected candidates for anything. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even the wording in the article itself is misleading. RHodes is not currently running against the incumbent, despite what his campaign rhetoric may imply, he is vying for the change to challenge the incumbent in the general election. However the long standing guidelines are that even major party nominees for congress and not default notable, much less people just running for the nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wasabi,the,one. If not, then delete for failing to meet notability requirements as already explained well in comments above. Peacock (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Marolt[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NSINGER and the sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. Most are very short and far from in-depth or just mention him as having been part of a non-notable boys band or covers his unsuccessful participation in Pop Idol in 2011 (axed after 2nd live) Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His single Prava Prilika has been presented on a compilation album under the Croatia Records label, entitled Fresh Travanj, 2015. 01/03. Maybe I should add more information under the section Avanti on the article that are mentioned on Croatian language? There are still some sources that I had already mentioned, that are mainly based on his career and personal life (news like 24sata, Večernji list, Index.hr and etc.). He also was a guest on a radio called Antena Zadar (new source can be found under the references). There is an article on his high school website about him preforming a song on a Tribute to John Lennon event. He also preformed on a concert called Koncert Romana Pavliša i prijatelji. The preformance was sponsored by Radio Drava and Koprivnica.net. --Intelinsidehp (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only article produced by the search tools was a brief mention on what appears to be a music industry website from (likely) Croatia, so the search included his own part of the world. Lack of Wikipedia level notoriety = delete. Tapered (talk) 07:25, 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) 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.R.Mahendran[edit]

Dr.R.Mahendran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

So the subject received press coverage in The Hindu but other than this, lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Therefore the subject does not appear to meet GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- There's more coverage than the one article noted by nom from The Hindu. There are these two, also from The Hindu: [16], [17]. There's also this, which doesn't seem to be online:
• Inter-crop model may cushion impact of vanilla price swings Economic Times, The (Mumbai, India) - September 7, 2004

Thus meets GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK none of the coverage discuss the subject directly and in-depth. --Saqib (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just made up the "in-depth" part. WP:GNG requires that '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' That means that Sig Cov has statements that are directly about the subject. It also means that the criterion is solely based on whether the RS can be used to establish facts about the subject. These can. Furthermore, as GNG reminds us, " it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Contra your misleading claim, there is no requirement that Sig Cov discuss subject in-depth and all three of these sources discuss subject in detail so that no OR is needed to extract content and the fact that the subject is not the main topic of the RS is, explicitly per GNG, irrelevant. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that you don't think the provided sources meet the criterion for establishing notability, but no one here is talking about sources to support claims within an article except for you. You said they need to be "in-depth." I quoted GNG to prove that in fact, sources to establish notability DO NOT have to be "in-depth." They have to be "in detail." It's a very different thing, and our AfD process is not well-served by you materially altering the requirements of the notability criterion in your comments. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage in the form of a news-stories is hardly encyclopedically notable, given it's abundance, now-a-days, and is not enough to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even the form of the article name shouts that this is probably a problematic promotional article. The sourcing is clearly not enough for GNG, but even if it was this article would still suffer from acting as a promotionalist platform. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to advertise their specific organic farming endevors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable and almost totally promotional DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aropa Records[edit]

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

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Dash Berlin, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG. KingAndGod 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability, no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP.
• Delete: fails WP:NCORP. The label was wound up in 2014 – the only one of its 42 releases that charted anywhere was the very first one, "Man on the Run", which made no. 38 in the Netherlands. No sources found that describe the label in detail. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 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) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Woods (politician)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable politician. Woods was a local town councilman who attempted to run for wider office on several occasions (state senate on two occasions and governor on another). In all contests, he dropped out or lost during the primary process. The coverage he received is not beyond the standard level of local coverage any candidate might expect, but as he never managed to win any of his larger races, I'd argue that he does not meet WP:NPOL. As an aside, and probably largely unrelated, the article was recently PROD'ed with the rationale that "The person listed in this article no longer wishes it to be published." That PROD was declined (by me) as an invalid reason to delete the article, but further examination of its actual content lead me to this AFD nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Serving on the municipal council of a town with a population of less than 10K is not an automatic pass over WP:NPOL #2, and only one reliable source here is actually covering him in that context, which is not enough to make a smalltown municipal councillor a special case over and above most other smalltown municipal councillors. And people don't get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates, either — if a person doesn't win election to, and thereby hold, an office that passes NPOL #1, then he has to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons, and the amount of sourcing shown here for the candidacies is, once again, not nearly enough to make his candidacies somehow more notable than most other candidacies. And nominator is correct that "the subject doesn't want an article" isn't a valid reason for prod, because sometimes that has been tried by people who have a strong enough notability claim that we have to overrule their wish — but per WP:BIODEL it can be taken into account in an AFD discussion if a genuinely strong notability claim isn't really in play, and nothing here is a particularly strong notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet NPOL per Bearcat; no claim of meeting GNG apart from the coverage of failed political campaigns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:05, 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. Per anlysis of sources in discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University of Alberta Outdoors Club[edit]

University of Alberta Outdoors Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My Google Search returned primarily sources within the University of Alberta domain, as well as a couple of social media websites. No independent coverage in reliable sources appears to exist, causing this to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Searches find nothing that's not related to either the university or the Edmonton area. Neiltonks (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• per nom - sources are almost entirely OR, social media, OR from other unis doing events with them. There is a single mention in a book I found on the history of the group, but a literal line only. No notability established. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added reliable independent sources from from the Peel's Prairie Provinces as well as written out part of what makes this club relevant and note-worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N64kidg (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - flickering views on my behalf, apologies. So Gateway is the (old?) student newspaper. Certainly the altered set-up is backed-up more, but with potentially unreliably source. Some of the city stuff might have alternate sources - I will have a look tomorrow. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@N64kidg and Nosebagbear: The newly added sources don't establish notability, as they fail to meet WP:NORG, which reads: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." I have seen no articles from sources outside of Edmonton. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a student union club, the refs are mostly primary with some local coverage that doesn't establish notability, nothing i can see on google that is different from that which is already in the article. Recently created by an spa. Szzuk (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#A7 (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CleanMail Antispam[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Should really be speediable. SmartSE (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced, blatant advertising. Ironically, a spam article for an antispam product! Neiltonks (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear advertising, main contributor seems to be a WP:SPA. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:G11. Septrillion (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:G11, WP:A7. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Focus[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, possibly with WP:TOOSOON mixed in given they debuted in 2017. The subject has as of yet produced one single which reached #47 on a chart in the US, which is far below the threshold set by Wikipedia's criteria for notable musicians. No other claims to significance are made and a search turns up few results, indicating a WP:SIGCOV (GNG) failure. In short, a musician who debuted with one single in 2017 that has not accrued the in-depth coverage required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC (for musicians) criterion #2 as having a song chart on a national music chart. The charting song for Chad Focus is "Dance With Me" which has charted on the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart, that is an acceptable chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS. KingAndGod 20:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but I remain of the mindset that a single (and relatively recent at that) album is not in itself an indication of notability. Note that NMUSIC posits that musicians may be notable if they fulfill the criteria of the guidline. And what of the seeming failure of WP:GNG?--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states "a topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. In this case, it has passed the subject-specific guideline and thus, merits an article without needing to pass WP:GNG as the guideline asserts that. KingAndGod 04:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now: The song Dance with Me hit the chart (week of 04-07-2018) at #47 (top 100) and climbed to #36 (week of 04-14-2018) in one week. I am NOT a fan of recentism or breaking news as we shouldn't rush to create articles ---but--- then we shouldn't rush to delete them either. I also think that any exclusion to GNG cannot over-ride the criteria and mandate concerning a WP:BLP so care should be used when a person is involve. This becomes Wikipedia problematic when an article is actually a pseudo biagraphy. In this case we have a VERY poorly written "wanna-a-be" biagraphy of a newer artist than can be fixed by edits. Notability can be established by the chart records and the Dance with Me video but the there would be concerns of violating WP:BIO1E. The artist also has the video RapXclusive (video): Get to the Money by Chad Focus and there is a Chad Focus bio (Hiphoprapscene). I think there is enough sourcing to present notability even though it really was WP:TOOSOON to create the article. The options now would be to leave as an article, userfy, or place in a draft. I would classify this a a "too soon" but let's "wait a while and see", since it is here, and I think wait and see is justified. Otr500 (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Per KingAndGod. If we give up on our subject-specific notability guidelines we're all lost. Many important subjects aren't necessarily covered in mainstream RS but nevertheless are encyclopedic. Musicians whose songs chart are just one example out of many. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NMUSIC. Septrillion (talk) 23:36, 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.