< 10 June	12 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunset (song)[edit]

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

Yet another article on a Moody Blues song that has been left unreferenced simply because no in-depth sources existed to begin with. I do not think a redirect is appropriate, unless the editing history is deleted then redirected to the likely search term Sunset. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's WP:FANCRUFT of interest to the band's devotees, but there are no reliable sources to indicate notability for this particular song. Could possibly be redirected to Days of Future Passed but since "Sunset" is a common term, that might mess up future searches for the natural event (as noted by the nominator). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSONG, and as noted, a redirect isn't useful due to the name. Richard3120 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Gupta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL (candidacy only), WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG.

Speedied twice in 2008 (WP:A7) and 2011 (WP:G11). Prior to last speedy, AfD unanimously concluded this is not WP:N. Tagged as lacking notability since 2013 in its current inception. I had to decline a PROD because of the previous AfD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found nothing more than passing mentions in a couple of news articles. MT Train^Talk 03:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note This version of the page is about a different Nikhil Gupta (the previously deleted articles were about a fortune-teller), so previous arguments for deletion do not necessarily apply. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability for politicians or basic notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few paltry mentions(WP:MILL coverage) does not add up to much in terms of notability...This should have been a no brainer since even the party he is running for does not have a Wikipedia page — F R ⁺ 11:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babysitters (film)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't want to say "per nom," but the nominator's assessment is correct here. Babysitters fails WP:NFILM. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hardly a film based only on sexual performances pass in WP:NFILM, in this case the characters do not have at least name.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM with no reviews in reliable sources, only in niche adult video sources Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is hardly an informative article, as it does not say much about the film other than listing the cast. Vorbee (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David An[edit]

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

Currently not a notable actor. So far, he has only had bit parts in films (few of which are themselves notable) and non-recurrent TV series roles and therefore falls short of the notability criterion for actors. The current references include IMDb (not viewed as reliable) and two interviews (which are generally considered as iffy because they are primary sources) so I don't think he passes the basic notability criterion either. Pichpich (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks the coverage needed to establish general notability nor do the roles indicate any sort of notability that could be established specifically for actors. --Whpq (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of insignificant roles do not add up to notability. Unfortunantely at present there seems to be an attitude in some circles in Wikipedia if you appeared in at least 10 films made before 1950, at least as long as you were included in the credits, you are notable. This is a horribly low threshold for notability and has produced some very vaucuous articles. I am doing my best to reverse this notation, and clearly keep it from applying to living actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Exactly what form the page should have is a subject for the talk page, but it is more than clear that there is no consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake [edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not comply with Wikipedia standards for a standalone list. It is not an encyclopedic topic; putting in sourced statements about random factoids does not cover that up. I myself wrote an essay against use of wp:TNT, but now I want to apply wp:TNT to completely get rid of this. Perhaps a disambiguation page can be allowed later. Note: The previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacArthurs Lake, was closed, unhelpfully in my opinion, cutting short discussion/decision about what to do. I installed the disambiguation page version; User:Aymatth2 has restored the list-article version. Previous AFD participants User:Squeamish Ossifrage, User:Yngvadottir, User:LaundryPizza03, User:Sandstein, could you please comment/vote on whether this page should be a stripped down disambiguation page, as in this version or a list-article (with pictures, sources) as in this version? Doncram (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are five articles with similar titles:

Lake McArthur

McArthur Lake, Northwest Territories

McArthur Lake, Ontario

Lac McArthur

McArthur Lake, Idaho

There is clearly a need for a list or disambiguation article to help readers navigate to the one they want. The advantage of the list format is that it supports information about several other lakes with similar names that do not warrant an article on their own. This is in line with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. But the format and content can be discussed on the article talk page. The question here is whether it should be deleted. It is useful and well-sourced, so should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would be useful is a disambiguation page; there is nothing further useful about the improper list. If you want to change how disambiguation pages are done in Wikipedia to allow photos and sources and random thoughts, then go ahead and open a discussion at wp:MOSDAB, and you will not succeed.

I previously pointed out that the section on "Common selection criteria" is about how many items to include in a standalone list, IF it is established that the list topic is acceptable. Here, the list topic "lakes with McArthur in their name" is not acceptable. It would be okay to have a proper, stripped-down disambiguation page as is done for other common lake names (Round Lake, Long Lake, etc.). --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, but reformat so it meets MOS:DAB standards. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move McArthur Lake (disambiguation) to the base title. Updating my !vote per developments below. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a set index article, similar to the examples: List of peaks named Signal and List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise. Perhaps that would be clearer if it was moved to List of lakes named McArthur, but I see no reason for that. As a set index it can support navigation and and give more information. The scenario I see is:

Granny is talking about her childhood vacations in Nova Scotia, where she fished in Lake McArthur. You look it up on Wikipedia and find there are three lakes with names like that, none with articles, but they give some information. You ask her, "Did it have a railway along the shore? Was there an old sawmill? Does the name Framboise ring a bell? She answers and you have found the lake, with links to the map, sources and pictures.

If we strip this set index down to a bare bones disambiguation page, we lose encyclopedic information and do our readers a disservice. To quote the guideline, "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required..." Aymatth2 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the navigational purpose of disambiguation pages are superior to the current set-up. The encyclopedic content is covered by the articles themselves, so there would be nothing that is "lost". The whole reason disambiguation pages are so "bare-bones" is so readers can find the article they want with as little lost effort as possible, which the status quo is awful at accomplishing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a place for both, and set index articles and disambiguation pages can coexist. For example the DAB Signal Mountain has a "See also" link to List of peaks named Signal. The DAB quickly takes the user to the article they want – if it exists. The Set index article gives information about all the entries in the set, whether or not they have articles. So we could move this one to List of lakes named McArthur, then make this title a DAB, but I think that works better if most entries in the index have articles, not the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The MOS is not meant to be a straitjacket, and DAB pages are not supposed to have redlinked entries. Also there are variants on the name: McArthur, McArthurs, etc. A list enables inclusion of identifying information, as Aymatth2 argues, sources, and images, and does not preclude also having a DAB page to lead quickly to those that do have standalone articles. One of our functions is to be a gazeteer, and accordingly I think the same standard should obtain here as for populated places, including neighborhoods: if encyclopedic information does not merit a standalone article, it should be preserved in an organized form that enables a reader to easily find it (including for example links in other articles to list items/article subsections) and does not involve spurious red links, which suggest a standalone article is merited. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: Disambiguation pages can/do include redlinked entries. Those should comply with MOS:DABRL, i.e. be supported by a bluelink to an article that shows the redlink in context, i.e. is suggestive that the topic deserves an article. Given Yngvadottir's misunderstanding, their "!vote" should be downweighted IMO, though Yngvadottir is welcome to revise or clarify their view.

A complete disambiguation page would include the following (with the Australia item being a redlink compliant with disambiguation page requirements) --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake, MacArthurs Lake, MacArthur's Lake, or variations, may refer to:

Australia

MacArthur's Lake (Victoria), a lake near Hattah, Victoria

Canada

British Colombia

Lake McArthur in Yoho National Park west of Lake Louise (Alberta)

Ontario

McArthur Lake, Ontario, south of Timmins

Northwest Territories

McArthur Lake, Northwest Territories on the Taltson River

Quebec

Lac McArthur (McArthur Lake), in the Outaouais region, near Denholm

United States

McArthur Lake, Idaho
- McArthur Lake Wildlife Management Area which includes it

That's all that's needed here. --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Red links indicate that an article is desirable. Whether or not practice has changed with respect to red links on DAB pages (it was my understanding that entries were to be kept to one per line, such that a red-linked item should only be added immediately prior to creating the article, with the line otherwise not linking the item but only the page to which the reader is referred for coverage), as Doncram says below, "A disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to Wikipedia-notable topics", whereas a list can include items that do not merit an article, but complete the set. If we remove this list and only keep the DAB page, we lose information—with references, yet—for lakes that fall below that threshhold. That does the reader a disservice and is pointless. An encyclopedia should not contain only information that merits entire articles. In addition, noting a point made below by Aymatth2, a list as opposed to a table not only renders better on a small screen but enables linking to items (including on the DAB page if desired) using links to subheadings. That facilitates reader searching. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aymatth2. This is a valid set index article, a/k/a a multi-stub, containing useful information that would not be included on a dab page. Everything seems to be sourced. (Came here per request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.) - Station1 (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the definition of an SIA: "a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Despite my initial misgivings (and apparent illiteracy at failing to notice the bluelinked articles... mea culpa) at the prior AFD, there's really no question that this should be retained in some format. Personally, it is my understanding of the MOS that there should be a disambiguation page here, following the disambiguation page style guidelines. That said, I would be amenable to including the lakes of this name without articles (such as the Nova Scotia lakes) in the disambiguation page; I believe the most correct outcome would be to make the one-link-per-line to... whatever the most appropriate administrative subdivision of Nova Scotia would be, for example. IF there's a desire for a set index also, that's an editorial decision; I am not clear when it is appropriate to have both a set index list and a disambiguation page when the content between the two would be largely (but not entirely) duplicative. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes without articles are in fact allowed on a disambiguation page, as long as there is a redlink to them from some other article. If a lake is never expected to get an article and there is no redlink to it, then we don't want to mention it at all. A disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to Wikipedia-notable topics. --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see guidelines on this, but think the common practice is

If most of the set members have articles there should be a DAB page setname plus a set index list of setname to handle the complete set.
If most of the set entries do not have articles, there should just be a set index setname. The idea is not to force someone looking for a member without an article to go first to the DAB page, then click through to the set index, which they may not spot at the foot of the DAB page.

In this case, there are five lakes with articles and six that are unlikely to ever get articles. My feeling is that only a set index setname is most appropriate. It will take slightly longer to find the first five, but much less time to find the other six. But obviously the first five are more likely search targets, so this is not a strong argument. It would be easy enough to rename this one as a "list of" index, then make a short DAB with a link to the index. I prefer the heading-style list given here to a table-style list mainly because wide tables render poorly on phones, the main viewing device these days. This is just personal preference. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this where everything with the similar name is part of the same set, only the set index article is required, because every item that would appear on a dab page is already included and linked from the set index. Only if there were topics unrelated to lakes -- say "McArthur Lake (play)", "McArthur Lake (song)" and "McArthur Lake (painting)" -- would we need a separate dab page with the article about the lakes being one of the items. Station1 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. – that makes sense. The set index is primarily a type of list article, but it can serve as a type of DAB if it covers all the meanings. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: C'mon people. Exert some editorial judgment. If someone wants to waste a good portion of their life compiling lists of lakes, I suggest that they choose to create or expand and split out compilations organized by geographic area or by watershed, rather than glomming together lakes with various letter-strings in their name. E.g. Lakes of Nova Scotia, erm, oh, someone did that already, which serves "granny" fine already. Searching "McCarthur Lake Nova Scotia" would yield the Lakes of Nova Scotia list-article, and "granny" could click on the coordinates and go to a Google map showing it. There ain't no granny needing your further "help". Hmm, Nova Scotia lakes include a McCarthys Lake (which deserves deletion by my view, but maybe you think it should be expanded into a list-article). Hmm, shouldn't you expand your list-article to be "lakes with McCarthur or MacCarthur or McCarthy in their names". Or start a new compilation for the McCarthy ones? And one for MacDonalds Lake, and one for MacGregors Lake, and one for MacIntyre Lake, and one for MacRaes Lake. Go ahead waste your life, adding no value for anyone. Or maybe you give someone miniscule value, at cost of giving negative value to others who might search and find nothing worth arriving at. Uggh. We do get to exercise editorial judgment in Wikipedia, and what makes sense here is to say NO. --Doncram (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: All this list-article does is append together what one editor found in Google search for "McArthur Lake". It adds no value for "granny" who can search better in Google than you can, because she can add more terms and search more narrowly. It actually hurts, now Granny has to wade through this new list-article in the Google results, which will end up including dead links, too. A fresh Google search is better for her than this; it shows no editorial discretion helping a specific-item-searching-Granny nor providing anything encyclopedic to those interested in lakes more generally. An encyclopedia should add value by editorial discretion, not include crap like "Fish include largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, warmouth, flier, pickerel and bullhead catfish.[20]", etc. Would you like for a robot to generate a zillion more wikipedia articles, on every possible search term in Google? Let me call this my Google test for list-articles: we don't want the list-article if it provides nothing more than what Google can generate on the fly, and if it is worse than fresh Google results for many/most searchers. --Doncram (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB page per Doncram. This is effectively a content dispute at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a content dispute, and technically that should be resolved by gaining consensus on the article's talk page, not through an AfD. But I think we would all like to put it to bed. @Power~enwiki: Do you have a policy-based reason for your vote to convert the article from a set index to a disambiguation page? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing this can be covered as an AFD. Conceptually I think it is better understood as disagreement about whether a list-article should exist, so AFD is better. In two seconds I could create McArthur Lake (disambiguation) and then everyone would agree this is technically correct, to have an AFD about the list-article, with intent for it to be deleted and have the disambiguation page moved there. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Apparently that was confusing, as if the creation of a separate DAB page would make me okay with this list-article. No, I nominated this list-article for deletion and stand by my opinion it should be deleted.--Doncram (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus that the article fully conforms with the standard set index list structure. No policy-based reason has been given to convert it from that to a disambiguation page. I suggest we take the closer's decision here as a decision to not reopen the same stale argument on the article's talk page. But let's give user:Power~enwiki a chance to give us a reason other than "I don't like set indexes". Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Doncram and Aymatth2 actually agree on how to handle this, I'll stay out and this can probably be speedily closed with whatever consensus they both support. If not, my take is that Set Index articles generally don't contain paragraph-length descriptions of topics that aren't otherwise notable. If that is the appropriate treatment for content of this type, I'd rather see it on a "List of lakes in Nova Scotia" rather than a "List of lakes called McArthur". Having the same name doesn't really meet "things of only one type", the various lakes are different things that share the same name; almost every entry in Category:Set indices on lakes is also disambiguated by province/state. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Aymathh2 and I do not agree. The list-article should be deleted. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "list-article". I assume you mean anything beyond your DAB page. To try to be entirely clear: as McArthur Lake (Idaho) and McArthur Lake (Northwest Territories) both seem to be acceptable articles (in addition to various Lake MacArthur type names), a DAB is necessary. I don't see the need for anything further here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake is a standard set index article, a list of lakes called "McArthur Lake", including five that have articles and six that do not. It gives 1–3 lines of text about each lake, citing sources. It may help readers looking for information on a given McArthur Lake, even if there is no article for that lake. The AfD nominator agrees there should be a page with this name. Is there any guideline that says everything after the lead section in this set index article should be deleted, so it becomes a DAB? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Says you. Okay, call it "set index article", rather than a list-article. This AFD proposes that it should be deleted, because it is not a notable topic for a set index article or list-article. There has to be some standard. Why not create a complete list in mainspace listing Aymatth2 and myself and other editors here. It would be a complete list of a set. That does not make it Wikipedia-notable.

Trying now to cut through minor confusion here, I have created McArthur Lake (disambiguation) as a disambiguation page. This AFD continues on whether the "set index article" should be kept or deleted to make way for the disambiguation page to be moved to simply "McArthur Lake". Several editors above have agreed that there should be a disambiguation page, and fewer have agreed that the current list-article is a set index article, seemingly therefore supporting its continuation. But none of these have provided evidence on it meeting any standard for notability. We do not want 50,000 or more set index articles about lakes which tries to save steps for Granny's Google search; we have an existing geography-based list-system of lakes. --Doncram (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that McArthur Lake (disambiguation) has been created, the only reason to delete this article would be to obliterate from WP all the information contained in the article about the lakes that don't have their own articles. If the idea is only to allow the dab page to use the base title "McArthur Lake" because there is no WP:Primary topic, that is better handled with a WP:Move request; this article could then remain with a new name like "List of lakes named McArthur". If the preference is to keep the information but have it in different articles like List of lakes in Nova Scotia, that can be handled with a series of splits and merges, after which this set index article could be converted to a dab page. Another possibility is to create stubs for the lakes that don't yet have articles and then convert this to a dab page. Personally, I think things are fine as they are. Station1 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The DAB page is completely redundant to the lead section of the set index list, but more long-winded, and was just created to make a point. Probably simpler to delete it as part of closing this discussion. There is no reason to have two pages with the same list of five articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that McArthur Lake (disambiguation) has been plagiarized from McArthur Lake by taking a copy and pruning out much content. The proposal by User:Doncram is to delete McArthur Lake and then replace it by the plagiarized version, which would wipe out all history of the editors who did the work to assemble this list. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is emphatically not plagiarism. It concerns me that you think it is. Frickeg (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is plagiarism. That is when you copy material from another source without due acknowledgement. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the way it should have been done. The strange decision to have one heading per list entry, the same text and sequence as McArthur Lake, clearly shows copying. A more normal structure would have been that of the lead section in McArthur Lake, a simple 5-line bulleted list, but that simple list did not exist when the (attributed) copy at Talk:McArthur Lake/Alternate1 was taken. One way to have handled this would have been through an acknowledgement in the edit summary. A much simpler way to convert to a DAB (which I do not think should be done) would be to replace the last line in the lead section with ((disambiguation)) and delete the remainder. That leaves all the history intact. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and move the dab page here. Seriously? People are arguing to keep a list of things based only on their name? The entire purpose of disambiguation is to point people to the proper places to find this information, and if they're not notable enough for an article they can either be included in a proper geographic location or not included at all. For those concerned about losing information - if the lake is notable, move this content to a stub article. If it isn't, consider whether the information is worthwhile being on Wikipedia, and if it is, move it somewhere so that the dab page can send people there (the Victorian one, for example, could go to Raak Plain) The fact that anyone is seriously arguing that "List of lakes named McArthur" is a remotely serious outcome here makes my head spin. What next, "List of people named John"? Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what Wikipedia:Set index articles are all about. List of peaks named Signal is a recognized type of article. The title is not a notable subject, but the list is useful. The above vote is "I don't like set index articles". Again, if there were any case for converting this article to a DAB, that should be done by simply deleting everything but the lead section, leaving the edit history intact, The clumsy "delete-then-move" the strangely structured and unattributed DAB serves only to destroy edit history. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many thousands of articles that are lists of people who have no connection other than their first name, including Johnny, Johnathan, Johne, Johnie, and Johny. - Station1 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly reformat to more of a disambiguation page, but there's nothing wrong with including lakes with this name that aren't notable enough for their own article in the list. SportingFlyer talk 19:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To see how it would look, I put the article into table format at Talk:McArthur Lake/Alternate2. This layout is more like the sample articles cited at Wikipedia:Set index articles. It does not look nearly as bad on a mobile as I expected. That change could be discussed on the article talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I might put the bluelinks at the top as well as in the list, though. SportingFlyer talk 02:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that. So the front of the article still looks like a disambiguation page, then the detail follows, but it is not broken up with headings. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split, and replace by a disam page for the lakes, since each of them is independently notable. A few don't have individual articles yet, and they are needed. The content here can be used as a start DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If all the eleven lakes have articles this page can be trimmed down to a disambiguation page. I will do that after splitting out articles for the six lakes that have no pages if the decision is to split. I am a bit hesitant because I think I scraped the bottom of the barrel for online sources on McArthur Lakes, so the information given here on the non-article lakes is just about all that is available. In the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake, Ontario it has been pointed out that WP:GEOLAND is extremely tolerant of articles on lakes that would fail WP:GNG. The guideline says:

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.

But rightly or wrongly these very short, maybe single-sourced articles, are likely to get AfD challenges. I do not want to create articles that just get deleted, but am not sure I would have the energy to defend them. I suppose they could be redirects to paragraphs in articles on local geography, but that seem a bit artificial when the local geography unit contains many lakes but its article does not yet discuss any of them. @DGG: Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can challenge anything, dut so far only aabout a tenth of articles on such geographic features have been defeated at AfD. Factors preventing deletion have been whether there are facilities at the lake, and especially if the lake is aa major part of a public park. (If there are facilities of a park, it should in prinicple be able to getsources about their creation or designation, but these are the sort of sources that are difficult to find; though they sometimes turn up in the online portions of local newspapers--but the entire run of all local newspaers are yet online,and many local and State official records are still only in print. Still, the possibility means they are soureable; there is no requirement they be currently sourced. Factors leading towards deletion have been if htere is literally only a name on a map, if t's a small lake on private property, and especially if there is a hotel or resort on the lake and the article iswritten to highlight it in a promotional manner. It's not artificial to make articles where we conveniently can, and add more later--most of WP has grown in just that fashion. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that opinion DGG, which I respect. I have started MacArthur's Lake (Victoria) and will take a shot at the remaining seven lakes that do not yet have articles. When that is done, tomorrow I hope, I will trim this article down into a disambiguation page. I fully support the objective that Yngvadottir has noted of making Wikipedia a useful gazetteer. Thanks again, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a first cut and will tidy up tomorrow. I see no reason to keep this discussion open. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Steve Smith (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Boockvar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nice man I'm sure. E Eng 21:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please give reason(s) as to why this article should be deleted. 344917661X (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability -- what did you think? E Eng 22:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as currently stands is referenced solely to affiliated sources and to databases, neither of which denote notability. Previously AFD's "keep" rested on accepting reposted press releases as legitimate coverage, which was an error. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cursory examination of, say, Google News shows one, maybe two hits, neither of which has enough depth to satisfy the requirements here. (At least, insofar as I recall my check from a few hours ago. Let me do one again.) Sorry, four. Three are press releases, and one is a mention in passing in some unknown newspaper. (I say that, and I mean that it lacks a Wikipedia article of its own.) So, simply put: just not enough notability for now. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 03:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history of promotional pressure i am not going to !vote to keep (btw, his main page at Northwell, which I did not use as source, as it is disgustingly promotional, says "Click here to view Dr. Boockvar's Wikipedia page." People at the Northwell have dumped truckloads of promotional slag into WP and have corrupted many pages here. Grrr.)

In any case I cleaned the page up and added some stuff in these diffs. You all can reckon if he passes the bar or not. He is a full professor, but doesn't heve a named chair, has about 130 papers per pubmed, and has i think made an impact in his field. but you all decide. Its marginal and there is a real dearth of independent discussion about him. I will not !vote keep. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking notability, even post make-over. I remember Greg. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom It's just a resumé, and Wikipedia is not a place to to place resumés or a promotional venue. Not Myspace. Not meeting WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC etc. Lacks sufficient content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirmal Baby Varghese (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 14:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Baby Varghese (Editor)[edit]

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

Deleted once before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirmal Baby Varghese. ((db-repost)) was removed by IP editor. Same issues as before, fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. 344917661X (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AFD is a waste of time as this page has been deleted on 18 May 2018 via AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirmal Baby Varghese and a G4 tag was removed multiple times by IP's. FITINDIA 05:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Team Liquid. Will protect this to prevent undue restoration of the bio; any info worth merging to the target article is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Arhancet[edit]

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

Gamer and co-CEO of a team that plays in League of Legends; notability has been questioned. The article was created in 2015. Redirected to his team, Team Liquid, by User:Drmies in March 2018. Today (June 11, 2018) the original article was restored by User:ImRespawn, a single-purpose account. The redirect was restored by Drmies; the full article was again restored by ImRespawn. I have temporarily full protected the article to get a definitive opinion from the community whether this should be deleted, redirected, or kept as an article. MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Team Liquid. The redirect target was actually League of Legends at first instead of Team Liquid, but the latter seems more relevant because he isn't even mentioned once at League of Legends. 9³ (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable due to being a relevant figurehead in the community. For example he is mentioned in this LA Times article, http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-la-tech-20161003-snap-htmlstory.html and he is the owner (https://www.teamliquidpro.com/about) of the organization. A colleague of his, Andy Dinh has a wiki page, and I would argue that they have similar if not Steve having more influence in the esports scene. ImRespawn (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Team Liquid. As per 93. No independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful (Aretha Henry album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album and possible conflict of interest. No notice in reliable sources, and claims of chart placement are suspicious. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted (Aretha Henry album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Before anyone says "Redirect to Artist's Article" as is becoming common practice, that article is also being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aretha Henry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, likely WP:COI with article creators. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NALBUM. Rain, Snow, Sleet and Hail / If It's Leaking Get the Pail. Good work, though, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Sum Up - There is a lot of "See also" in the world of Aretha Henry deletion discussions. We now have four AfDs nominated by four different people over five days. This shows you the power of community, if you ask me. Here is what we have so far:

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 applies here, so it would be best to end this. The single 'keep' argument can be discounted by virtue of the overwhelming consensus that the source provided is not reliable or independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahool[edit]

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

A number of pseudoscientific sources are being cited, but no WP:FRIND sources are apparently available to objectively describe this WP:FRINGE subject -- a supposedly 10 foot ~~tall~~ wingspan bat. As a result, article has been padded out with speculative WP:OR. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was also unable to find anything but fringe sources on this topic. If the root of all of this is folk belief, I'm not finding it. Without a reliable source, I can't tell what's beyond the fringe echo chamber. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the only report appears to be "The One True Batman" by Ivan T. Sanderson and Ernst Bartels in a July 1966 issue of Fate, repeated a few times in fringe sources like Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology and The Beasts That Hide from Man. Absolutely nothing resembling significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. --tronvillain (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fringe content that doesn't have WP:FRIND doesn't belong here. By the way, this might be of interest to the fringe theory noticeboard if you haven't posted it there already. Nanophosis (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like XOR'easter took care of it already. --tronvillain (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)#[reply]

Delete per nom, following an appearance on FTN. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Mentioned in a number of sources published by respected publishers. 91.235.142.81 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the rest of us can't find a single instance of this, care to provide an example? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and Schuster 91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a publisher. What is it you are referring to that was published by this publisher? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the references in the article.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, And Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature, but that's absolutely not a reliable source independent of the subject, and even if it was, wouldn't establish notability. --tronvillain (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely a reliable source for what it is being used to cite. Good look finding any "independent" source on this topic. All either are pro-Cryptozoology or anti-Cryptozoology. Independent is not necessary to establish notability.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well played sir. Have a towel. + + + hands towel + + + -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the definition of "independent" used in the link you have provided those sources are independent.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFRINGE, "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Coleman could not possibly be more of a promoter/popularizer, and a few paragraphs repeating the primary source is not extensive coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what those words mean. A popularizer is someone who originally made something popular and a promulgator is the originator of something.91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure IP, sure. It doesn't matter anyway. --tronvillain (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That response really says it all doesn't it?91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it doesn't constitute extensive coverage, so it doesn't matter whether or not he's a popularize/promulgator? I'm not sure you've looked up the definitions of those words recently though. --tronvillain (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that one source constituted that?91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Promulgator" does not mean the originator of something. There are literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of dictionaries available on the very internet you're arguing on: please use one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near enough reference material for an article. If the sources are all big lists of cryptids, rather than specifically about this particular one, then this strongly suggests that it is not notable enough for an article although it could be mentioned very briefly in other articles. For example, I'd have no objection to a redirect to List of cryptids provided the entry for it there becomes referenced and the silly picture accompanying it gets removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per DanielRigal. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 19:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not covered in WP:FRINDependent sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage independent of cryptozoology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love cryptozoology and want them to have strong Wikipedia pages for people to find and learn about. But in this specific case I think we need to delete this article.Sgerbic (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I live in the real world. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as withdrawn by nominator AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Đức_Cơ[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of Đức Cơ

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

WP:GNG and WP:RS. There is one source for this topic, and the notability of it appears scant and obscure. The source itself seems to not meet the criteria for a reliable source. A bicyclette (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Move to Battle of Landing Zone 27 Victor As the Battle of LZ 27 Victor, this is covered by Lewis Sorley in an account of US Army armor cavalry combat in Vietnam.pp 339-340. Sorley ascribes the impact of the engagement on VC/NVA tactics: "After LZ 27 Victor they generally avoided infantry assaults on positions occupied by U.S. armor.", describing it as a "small but significant battle". It is also mentioned in a volume of the US Army official history of Vietnam, pp 297-299. That's WP:SIGCOV in 2 WP:RS. Not only that, but in Korean Chae Myung-shin mentioned it in his memoirs [1]. Kges1901 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind filling in some details? There's scant information on this. 00:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)~

Keep. I'm not even going to bother to list any of the numerous book sources that cover this battle (you need to search for "Duc Co"). The nomination is a complete failure of WP:BEFORE. SpinningSpark 22:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding a single book source on it oddly enough. 00:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a point, searching the specific date, August 6th, 1966 and Duc Co just returns information that two villages were "mistakenly believed to be VC camps", resulting in 67 civilian casualties. There's no information on actual battles taking place here except this specific source. User:a_bicyclette

Keep Carland is WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing request for deletion. A good source was found, with significant more detail on the matter. (User talk:a_bicyclette)

Keep Seems notable per my BEFORE. oppose move to ""Battle of Landing Zone 27 Victor" - which seems less common.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covering by reliable sources demonstrated. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 03:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. I considered relisting this one, but it's been running for two weeks, and it's not like there's much ongoing discussion. Steve Smith (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glendy B. Arnold[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that she meets WP:GNG, and there is no indication she meets WP:NPOL. Was de-prodded with the comment, "There is an incoming link to this page", which doesn't seem to be a valid rationale to disapprove a prod. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of fodder for a more extensive article about this gentleman at https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Glendy+B.+Arnold%22&offset=2. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~::It is marked as a stub. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Numerous sources have been added since the article was nominated for AfD. These should be contemplated in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the offices held by the subject are sufficient to meet automatic notability for politicians, and none of his other activities, political or otherwise, reach notability under WP:ANYBIO. While he is mentioned in newspaper sources, the coverage is routine and not particularly significant. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A three-column article, with illustrations, in a major metropolitan newspaper is not routine. Thanks. https://www.newspapers.com/image/138159868/?terms=%22Glendy%2BB.%2BArnold%22%2Bmarguerite%2Bmartyn. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well enough sourced to pass GNG. Historical biography of an American judge. Carrite (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be reassuring to know that the nominator put enough effort into WP:BEFORE to actually get the gender of the subject right. Carrite (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - was not aware that gender was an aspect of either WP:GNG or WP:BEFORE… or perhaps it was a simple type. Nice AGF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Thirai[edit]

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

Non-notable web series, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I believe this article was created by a sockpuppet of a very prolific, indeffed editor Arnav19, who was almost certainly editing for pay, and who used such a poor template for his scores of articles, that he introduced the same boneheaded mistakes across the scores of articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Early close per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Scottish Challenge Cup[edit]

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

Advertisement or announcement - pick one - of a sporting event that has not taken place yet. NOTDIRECTORY It was redirected to Scottish Challenge Cup but the redirect was removed on June 8, 2018. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Up coming tournament that is a month and a bit a way and has had an article every year since its creation in 1990. Meets WP:NSEASONS. NZFC^(talk) 21:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NZ Footballs Conscience. It's completely normal to create articles for upcoming competitions once information about them can be reliably sourced. Nzd (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- After reading WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, the article meets the notability guidelines applicable because of the coverage in reliable sources it has received. It could do with improving, a section on the recent controversies wouldn't go amiss. I understand the point about having just been announced but a similar stance could be taken on many sporting events that have not taken place yet, off the top of my head 2018–19 Scottish Cup, 2018–19 FA Cup, 2018–19 Isthmian League, 2018–19 Highland Football League would all fall under the same bracket. If the consensus is against keeping the article, I'd suggest that it – and similar articles – be redirected until they have received the necessary coverage in reliable sources. The only problem with that is that there would be a chance that the articles are just recreated anyway. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been plenty of coverage in WP:RS about how this season's competition will include two English clubs (BBC, STV). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. Next iteration of an obviously notable tournament, which will definitely happen and be notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Giant Snowman 07:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another ridicules nomination for deletion, the nominator really needs to do his homework. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously notable, another ridiculous nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted (Aretha Henry album)[edit]

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

Not notable; article created with possible WP:COI, possibly for promotional purposes – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Also Beautiful (Aretha Henry album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Normally in these cases you would suggest a redirect to the artist's article, but close inspection of the sources shows there's almost nothing on either the album or artist articles that passes RS. The AllMusic and BBC pages are empty of any information, the Digital Journal entry is a reproduction of a press notice advertising the album, there are no reviews of the records even on blogspots, and no idea what the Starfleet Music Charts are, but they appear to be a paid-for service to get your music noticed. The only RS I see is a short interview in a local Mississippi newspaper [2], so not enough coverage to demonstrate notability of the artist. As Doomsdayer520 says, I think Beautiful (Aretha Henry album) and Aretha Henry herself should all be bundled together for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In complete agreement with User:Richard3120 above. Her two album articles do not reach the notability standard, and I would also support deleting the singer's article because it is an attempt at promotion and is based entirely on run of the mill song listings and minor introductions to her existence. I can find no significant coverage for the singer or her albums except for the Mississippi newspaper article found by Richard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Before anyone says "Redirect to Artist's Article" as is becoming common practice, that article is also being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aretha Henry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NALBUM. Can someone pass the salt? -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Sum Up - There is a lot of "See also" in the world of Aretha Henry deletion discussions. We now have four AfDs nominated by four different people over five days. This shows you the power of community, if you ask me. Here is what we have so far:

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, and I'm taking the nominator's last comment as effectively a withdrawal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species[edit]

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

This article reads like synthesis and original research in many places, but without inline citations it is almost impossible to tell. The tag for fixing citations has been up since 2016 with no resolution. I believe it would be nearly impossible, using the references provided below, for another editor to come and clean up the citations in this article and get it up to snuff. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is neither synthesis nor original research to compile a list of defined species by a defined time period based on known scientific data cited in numerous reliable sources. Since all species are de facto presumed notable, the presence of redlinks on the list is not an issue. The informal term "Late Quaternary" refers to the past 0.5–1.0 million years. Therefore this is a list of all scientifically defined and known extinct birds which lived in the past 1 million years. For obvious reasons it is recorded in reliable sources whether a particular species in extinct, and when it lived. The data of when it lived is reliably known in all cases from the geological context of the fossil it is recorded from, or where multiple fossil records are found, from multiple sources. The arrangement of the list is strictly by scientific classification, and therefore is the most unoriginal format imaginable, and easily verifiable from any database of taxon information. Regarding the sources in the article, these are currently insufficient and provide only a brief overview of the subject. To correctly source the article would require typing each name into the appropriate database to get inline citations for each list entry. Of course this is a lot of effort, however Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is unreasonable to expect this to complete itself in a week. And finally, many articles are bluelinked, the articles themselves already contain appropriate citations to verify their scientific classification, period, and extinction. Therefore even a cursory inspection of the list is sufficient to show that it is accurate. I have neither the time nor the inclination to check the entire list, but what I have checked is correct and validly arranged information. 86.185.214.139 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. There are entire books written on the topic (e.g. the Fossil birds from late Quaternary deposits in New Caledonia cited in the article), proving this meets WP:LISTN

As a matter of practical advice, Basilosauridae, you can remove any content that is not accompanied by an inline citation. It cannot be returned without one. General references can't meet WP:MINREF. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Basilosauridae, general references can be used to support non-controversial statements that are not direct quotations. Content that truly is controiversial, or tha tyou belive in good faith to be inaccurate, may be challenged and removed if a citaton is not provided (although it is better practice to place a ((cn)) tag and wait a week or more before removing content, see WP:PRESERVE. Removing uncited content that you have no reason to believe inaccurate is a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and a form of Disruptive Editing. Please don't do that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DESiegel, it's controversial (challenged or likely to be challenged) material that MINREF applies to. But inaccuracy is not the only reason for removing unsourced material. All content on Wikipedia needs to be, even more importantly than accurate, verifiable. I'm not saying that all unreferenced content needs to be removed because it compromises verifiability. But the fact that this article was tagged with ((no footnotes)) means that somebody already thinks there is a problem. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes content needs to be verifiable. It does not, however, need to be verified. Merely putting a general tag on an article does not make every statement in the article controversial. Are there specific statements you think controversial, Finnusertop? If so, which and why? Given the range of general references already cited, I rather doubt that any of the content here is not verifiable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least the two already tagged inline with "verification needed". I don't disagree with anything you've said. Just pointing out that the article has a persistent problem because it doesn't have inline citations and it's been noticed by several users. Any removal of content at this point would certainly not be disruptive. If Basilosauridae were to stand by their words, then the logical outcome would be to remove all those statements where "without inline citations it is almost impossible to tell" if something is OR or not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are innumerable 'list of...' pages without citations to blue-linked articles, and this one doesn't need to be blown up because someone doesn't happen to like it. It meets WP:LISTN, and I support the keep rationales of 86.185.214.139 and Finnusertop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its very much within policy and there is no reason to delete. 86.185.214.139 has put it very well.--Kev min § 00:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:LISTN and WP:PRESERVE. This is not OR and while it should be better sourced, that ids not a valid reason to delete it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks all for your feedback. I will use your suggestions to challenge the material in the article that I think is questionable. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 01:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig DiLouie[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to reliable source coverage. Two of the five sources are his own primary source content about himself on his own self-published websites, and the other three are the self-published websites of literary awards that do not count as givers of notability under WP:AUTHOR: the extent to which a literary award counts as a notability claim for a writer is strictly coterminous with the extent to which real media cover the granting of that award as news. A literary award is not a notability-maker if you have to source the nomination or win to the award's own self-published website about itself because media coverage about the award is non-existent. Nothing here is properly sourced for the purposes of establishing that he's notable, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat, I felt I was complying with the WP:SELFPUB rule, and another editor had previously accepted these sources. I replaced the sources as requested, which I hope are satisfactory. There is a citation requested for the claim I was born in New Jersey, but I can't prove that using a link. Should I delete the claim? Notability is not claimed due to the awards but instead under the Wikipedia policy, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Should I cite reviews following each work? I welcome your guidance to make the page compliant with Wikipedia's policies and ideally remove the AfD. Thank you! Craig DiLouie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombieapocalypsenow (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a good number of solid independent reliable sources with substantial in-depth coverage of this person can be found. I can't find any, though he seems to get a good number of passing mentions for his expertise in electrical lighting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the application of Wikipedia's policies, which state an author is notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The above editor comment seems to say the author is only notable if there are articles online that describe the author him or herself. In the case of many authors, there are instead numerous articles written about their work, not them personally, which satisfies the literal text of the Wikipedia policy. I would be happy to cite numerous reviews by reputable reviewers for these books, which have been published by major publishers, nominated for awards, translated in multiple languages, and optioned for screen. I'm really hoping for a dialogue to improve the page, if that's possible. Thank you. Zombieapocalypsenow (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syscoin[edit]

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

Advertisement for yet another non-notable cryptocurrency. Entirely sourced to advert/tech blogs, press releases, and social media. The advert tone could be fixed, but the notability problem would remain: I can find no significant coverage in independent sources or in-depth third party WP:RS coverage that is even close to passing WP:NCORP or WP:GNG, just press releases and advertorial: in short a ton of well-orchestrated promo for it as a product. Draft articles are also starting to pop up here from other WP:SPAs, for the equally non-notable company that owns it, and the company's founder. TMG^talk 18:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given challenges of finding any RS to help establish notability. As nom points out current sourcing is poor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability, and the current article is largely promotional bullshit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand how you don't see Syscoin as a notable crypto currency. It has been around and been actively under development for almost 10 years! I mean like every single day. No other cryptos can really say this besides Bitcoin. 2001:569:5155:FC00:ADEF:F4C6:C4E9:AEAD (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh my, lots and lots of completely promotional BS, including a section on "features" with a formatted list of sub-features and then planned features in the next section. Promotional. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake, Ontario[edit]

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

New article about the same lake previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake. While this avoids all of the eyebrow-raising claims about district flags and island litter that pushed the first version toward hoax territory, what it doesn't actually do is reliably source any new indication that the lake is notable — the references here are entirely directory entries, maps and a source about the geology of the township that the lake is located in, which fails to even mention this lake at all in the process. So it's different enough to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it still fails to demonstrate any reason why the lake would warrant a Wikipedia article about it. As always, every lake is not automatically notable enough for inclusion here just because its existence is verifiable on maps — a lake needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about the lake to qualify for an article, but there's still no evidence being shown that this one has any of that. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a fair-sized lake, accessible by road. The article is based entirely on reliable sources, which give a reasonable amount of useful information about it. A search in Google books shows various other sources that discuss different aspects of the lake, particularly mineralogy. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the size of a lake, nor its accessibility or lack thereof by road, is an inclusion criterion for lakes in and of itself. Maps and directories are not notability-conferring sources, either, because they do not represent media coverage about the lake — and even your Google Search results bring up namechecks of the lake's existence in sources that are not about the lake, which still do not assist in establishing the lake's notability. The notability of a lake is established by historical, political or social context, not just by being technically able to reference the geological composition of its bedrock. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the guidelines that says only media coverage confers notability, or that historical, political or social context is needed. Any source that may reasonably be considered reliable and independent contributes to notability, and any useful type of information is appropriate. In this case, there is obviously considerable interest in the mineral potential of the lake. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The base notability criterion, the one from which all other more specific criteria derive and the one that even a topic that technically meets an SNG still has to also satisfy, is that it is the subject of reliable source coverage about it. And no, not just "any source that may reasonably be considered reliable and independent" contributes to notability — maps do not, indiscriminate government directories of every geographic location that exists within that government's terrain of jurisdiction do not, and on and so forth. A source has to represent editorial content about the topic, in magazines or newspapers or books or radio/TV broadcasts, to contribute toward notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial content rule is a new one to me. That means that just about every article on a butterfly should be deleted: no editorial content in the media, no historical, political or social context, just reference books and scientific papers. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly species get written about by reliable sources: reference books, for example, are still books, and botany literature is a thing too. And "historical, political or social context" is an issue with regard to geographic topics, not flora and fauna. The base rule for geographic topics is that we have to be able to reference more about the topic than just "it exists and here are some of its statistics" — every lake that exists at all is referenceable to maps and government directories of geographic names, but every lake that exists at all is not automatically notable just for existing, which is why lakes have to meet a higher standard of significance than just being verifiable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting. I always thought that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Where is the special rule for geographical topics stated? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in conflict with what I said — what I said is a clarification and expansion of what "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" means. Maps and government geoname databases, for starters, do not represent significant coverage about the lake, glancing namechecks of the lake's existence in coverage about other things (i.e. the Google Books search results you showed) do not represent significant coverage about the lake, and the only other source you've added here completely fails to even mention the lake at all and thus does not represent significant coverage about the lake. So you haven't shown any evidence that McArthur Lake passes the "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" at all — all you've shown is nominal verification that the lake exists, when WP:GEOLAND is quite clear that a lake requires more than just nominal verication that it exists before it becomes an appropriate article topic. And since the geological stuff is referenced to the source that fails to mention the lake at all, you're also synthesizeing sources about other topics to create new original research about the lake itself — which is also against Wikipedia's rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more sources. Government of course so they were just doing their job and the data came from volunteers, who say water quality is good, although no journalists checked the results. I stayed clear of the fishing lodges, which would be advertising. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is also recently-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacArthurs Lake, which IMO was unhelpfully closed by User:Sandstein, cutting short useful discussion/decision about what to do there. I am sick of contrived articles / content about "lakes with MacArthur in their name". Aymatth2, why are you interested in these? Creating more articles and stretching this out is seeming wp:POINTY perhaps, i.e. disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that every lake with MacArthur in its name needs a Wikipedia article, begging the question of "Why???". Deleting all would be best. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and prev. Afd decision and redirect to McArthur Lake#Ontario, where it has a paragraph. That's more than enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of this information. Seems a little too long to merge into McArthur Lake#Ontario, otherwise that would be ok. Station1 (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of a reason why this lake is a thing readers need information about in the first place? That's the question that requires answering here, because we're not an indiscriminate collection of "all information that exists" — we have standards to determine what kinds of information we should be maintaining and what kinds we should not. The controlling question is not just whether readers would be "deprived" of this information if we deleted it, because every single person, place or thing who exists at all could always technically answer that question with a yes — the question is whether there's a reason why the topic is important enough that its non-inclusion in Wikipedia would be "depriving" readers of anything they need to know. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I go fishing on McArthur Lake? Yes, it's used for recreation and there are over 20 camps and cottages there. I might get walleye or northern pike, but I'd better not go in the winter because the lake is frozen over. It looks beautiful in the photo but the map shows it's a little out of the way. I didn't know any of that before I read the article. Station1 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can go fishing on very nearly every lake that exists at all, unless you'll get arrested for trespassing because it's on private property (and even then you can still try), or it's so badly polluted that the fish are dead (and even then you can still try). In Canada, basically every lake freezes over in the winter except the Great Lakes, and even the Great Lakes freeze over too if the weather stays cold enough for long enough. And since ice fishing is a thing, even the fact that a lake has frozen over for the winter still doesn't prevent you from going fishing. So nope, you haven't "learned" anything that makes this lake notable, because you haven't stated anything that makes it different from every other lake that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that I won't get arrested for trespassing and that not all the fish are dead. Are there also camps and cottages at Bolton Lake (Cochrane District, Ontario), Cariad Lake, Kesagami Lake, or Gillies Lake, and can I get northern pike and walleye there? Some of them seem smaller but Gillies Lake does have wheelchair access and a swimming area. McArthur Lake might not have one, because of the rocky shore. The point is that this article has more information than many, maybe most, articles about lakes, and assuming the author got the information from reliable sources, the lake must be notable. It hurts no one for this information to remain and might be helpful to someone. More knowledge is better than less knowledge. Station1 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are valid reasons in and of themselves why a lake needs an encyclopedia article about it. On the types of sources shown here, it would be possible to write an article about every single lake that exists at all anywhere in the world — no lake ever fails to show up on a map, for example — but we can't feasibly sustain an article about every single lake that exists at all anywhere in the world. What a lake requires, to qualify for a Wikipedia article, is evidence that it's more notable than most other lakes for some substantive reason (such as at least the ability to show that the lake has been the subject of substantive coverage about it), not just the ability to verify that it's on maps and there are fish in it. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No lake needs an article about it. It will go on as it is, whether or not we have an article. The only difference is that fewer people will know about it. Why would we want fewer people to know about it? Station1 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person, place or thing who exists at all, including you, me, my dead cat and the park bench behind my apartment building, could make the exact same argument that a Wikipedia article is necessary because "people won't know about it otherwise" — what needs to be answered is not "why would we want fewer people to know about it?", but "why is it our job to care how many people will or won't know about it?". The way any article about anything gets into Wikipedia is "enough reliable source coverage about it exists to demonstrate that it passes a notability criterion", not just "it exists and here's a map and a photograph to prove it" — what an article needs to be keepable is an affirmative reason why it's important for people to know about it, namely passage of a notability criterion and reliable source coverage about it to support an article. "Fewer people will know about it otherwise" — once again, an argument which every single person, place or thing who has ever existed at all could always make — is not a keep rationale in and of itself absent a reason why it's important for people to know about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this particular lake is notable. I base that on the fact that someone was able to write a moderately substantial article about it using other than original research; it has more information and sources than many similar articles. Your threshold for notability is much higher than mine. That's simply a difference of opinion. Station1 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the only sources they used to write that article were maps, an indiscriminate government directory of every single geographic name that exists anywhere in all of Canada, and a tangential source which verifies the bedrock geology of the overall region without even mentioning the lake at all in the process. That is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a lake notable — and while you're certainly right that my threshold for notability is higher than yours, you're wrong about which of our thresholds for notability is in alignment with Wikipedia's threshold. (Hint: that would be mine.) Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I said anything about whose threshold was aligned with WP's. I'll just point out Category:Lakes of Cochrane District for comparables. Station1 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bad feeling about where the above comment may lead – could be the start of a mass extinction. Just as long as nobody tries to delete any lakes in Category:Lakes of Peterborough County. Don't even think about Little Lake. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per multiple sources per the above book search. No reason to delete this info, especially considering the potential redirect article is up for deletion as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly identify specifically what sources in the Google Books search are about the lake in any substantive and non-trivial way — sources which mention the lake in the process of being about something else are not the same thing as sources about the lake. We look at the quality, not the raw number, of Google hits when using Google to establish notability — so what sources are about the lake for the purposes of establishing the notability of the lake? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably not going to like this answer, but this is substantially about the lake. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are just passing mentions, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two glancing mentions of the lake's existence in a journal article about a different lake is not "substantially" about this lake. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND pretty clearly, as far as I can tell. Lots of books on the geology of the area, lots of mentions in Timmins-area publications. SportingFlyer talk 19:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lake does not pass GEOLAND on "books on the geology of the area" — a lake passes GEOLAND on sources in which the lake itself is the subject of the source, of which there have been zero shown but maps and routine indiscriminate databases. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Passes WP:GEOLAND, the standard for inclusion of lakes is set pretty low when compared to most other topics. As long as we can verify it actually exists and something more is known about it than just its location, I see no reason not to keep. I know we deleted some articles about lakes in Alaska a few months ago, but they were very remote and virtually nothing was known about them, this doesn't seem to be the case here.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:08, 14June 2018 (UTC)
Keep Wealways keep articles on named geographical feature unless they are of utterly trivial size. WP contains a gazeteer--this is a specific exemption to NOT INDISCRIMINATE found in the NOT policy. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. GEOLAND is quite explicit that the notability of geographic features is conditional on that feature being the subject of reliable source attention in its own right, independently of simply appearing on maps or in routine geographic names databases. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section is:

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

There has to be enough material for an encyclopedic article, and more than one source, which is clearly the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources here that are about the lake are maps and an indiscriminate "every geographic name that exists in Canada" directory. There are exactly zero other sources here that are about the lake in any subatantive way, just ones which glancingly mention its existence in the process of being about other things — which is not how you establish a lake as notable enough to clear the GEOLAND bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Rupp[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Article is poorly sourced and not enough reliable sources to show notability elsewhere. SportingFlyer talk 17:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a circumstance where being first does not make you any more or less notable; significant coverage and the points made out by NPOL do. Unfortunately, GNG is not met by passing mentions and routine press, and NPOL is not met by an otherwise unnotable office.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being first woman mayor of her own small town is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts her from having to show enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2 — but the only cited reference here is a brief blurb, which isn't enough coverage in and of itself to get her over NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minco is a place of less than 2000 people. Being the first female mayor of a place with 10 times that many people would not come close to making one notable. For a place this small, being mayor is never, ever going to be a sign of notability. Beyond this, the claim that Rupp was the first female mayor of Minco is totally unverified. The city source does not even mention Rupp at present, other than mentioning her as the publisher of the local paper in the promotional link about that paper, and that mention seems to be saying she wrote that page. In fact, I do not see verfied evidence that Rupp was ever mayor of Minco. The Minco website is clearly a work of non-reliable boosterism, going on about recent increases of population, even though the population in Minco fell between 2000 and 2010. To give the claim of first woman mayor context, we would need to know how long Minco has had a mayor. No sources I see tell us that, and no sources verify the claim to Rupp being the first woman mayor, which even if verfiied would not be enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although Sepcat5349 listed several sources in their (very long) keep !vote, I did not find upon inspection anything showing notability under any guideline. Most of the other arguments ("is continuing to grow in notability", "This page has been active under Wikipedia’s guidelines for three years", etc) are not policy based. Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zelana Montminy[edit]

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

Potential vanity page. Subject does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. She has written a book and sometimes writes articles (or comments in articles) online, but no indication of significance or significant coverage about her. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against deletion[edit]

Keep The page was approved three years ago and has been active since then. In that time, the subject has grown in notability so I would think that if she met the notability guidelines then, there's no reason she shouldn't now. Especially when she has since released a book and grown in notability. That book was published by a major publisher (HarperCollins) and she is now a speaker for that publisher. The book was covered by publications with large readerships and continues to be discussed in connection with her career as a media personality (more on that below and throughout the article).

Further, I believe this subject does meet Wikipedia's current notability guidelines. For Entertainers (which the subject could fall under), Wikipedia has the criteria that the subject:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

The subject has appeared in numerous multiple television shows on a recurring basis including nationally syndicated shows like The Dr Oz Show, The Today Show, Access Live and The Doctors. She's also appeared on numerous local (local being LA so a large market) and web-based programs.

She has made and is making contributions to her academic field of psychology. She has been referred to in Psychology Today (an independent, neutral publication) as a "health and wellness expert in the field of positive psychology." Multiple other publications have referred to her as a leading expert in the field of positive psychology.

She also meets the Academic notability criteria of

The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The subject consistently brings attention to the field of positive psychology through her work in the media (mentioned above and cited throughout the article).

She is currently developing curriculum for Pepperdine University and will soon join the university as an adjunct professor (proof of this can be provided via email as it has not yet been made public). She's already led a distinguished lecture series at Pepperdine. Additionally, Common Sense Media has asked her to join their Advisory Council and she has spoken at health-related conferences like this one hosted at UCLA (this is a PR link so obviously it won't be included in the article, but I wanted to showcase it here). I say all this to note that the subject both is a significant contributor to her academic field and is continuing to grow in notability within it and outside of it.

I think to say that the subject simply sometimes writes articles is a bit reductive as she is featured in major publications that bring attention to her academic field of study.

The Notability article states:

For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.

I am grateful to user Calliopejen1 for their work in editing Wikipedia articles. They recently even rejected a new page I attempted to publish and I understand their reasoning for that one. However, for this one, they seem to be suggesting that because there is not coverage necessarily about the subject that the subject is not notable. In other words, they are focusing on whether or not the subject is “famous” or “popular" which as noted should be secondary in consideration of these articles. My argument is not that the subject’s page is justified because they are “famous” or “popular”, but rather that the subject makes significant contributions to her academic field through the media in which she is frequently working in and meets notability guidelines because of this. I could simultaneously make the argument that she is famous or popular through the fact that her book is well-regarded and sold well (it was No. 1 on Amazon’s Mental Health Hot New Releases) or that her work has endorsements from numerous noteworthy figures, but those are already in the article.

This page has been active under Wikipedia’s guidelines for three years. It has never been deemed as not notable or inappropriate and I have yet to see a reason as to why that should change now especially as the subject has grown in notability. If there is verbiage in the article that makes it feel too much like a vanity page, I am happy to accommodate suggested edits as I do believe in maintaining neutrality and objectivity as an editor of this page and as a new member of the Wikipedia community. However, the argument being made with regard to Notability simply does not make much sense to me as the page was deemed notable three years ago and I see no real argument as to why that should not be the case now.

Once again, as a frequent user of Wikipedia - I greatly value the work the volunteer editorial team does here. If there are things that need to be done to address objectivity or neutrality in the article, I am happy to address them either now or moving forward. But I do object to the argument about the subject's Notability and hope that I have adequately addressed those concerns here. Sepcat5349 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the prior commenter is a paid editor for a Montminy company. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calliopejen1 Yes - thank you for pointing that out, and I mean that genuinely as I never intended to conceal it and hope that is clear from my user page containing the disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, I greatly value objectivity and neutrality and disclosed my association so that any edits I made would be kept in check if necessary. I am happy and willing to accommodate anything that doesn't come across as neutral or objective - even if it means that I do not edit the page anymore. In keeping with that, I would be happy to restore the page to the state it was in before I made edits as I did not create the page nor did I make any edits on it until just recently.

Again, if objectivity or neutrality is the issue, I believe we can reach a solution that does not involve deleting the page. If the issue remains to be notability, then I hope that I have answered concerns over that effectively in my initial post.Sepcat5349 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really thought that this article would pass GNG. Despite the above claims of meeting NPROF, NENT, and NAUTHOR I think the article's subject does not satisfy any of those criteria (and to avoid my own wall of text am not going in depth as to why, but would be happy to do so on request). But the general claims made above seemed strong and I thought with some effort I could find sources that would go towards GNG. Searching multiple newspaper databases I found no coverage of her at all, not even for the book (for which a much better claim of notability can be made). I lost patience in my Google searches because her TV appearances are what come up. In the end she seems like some YouTube personalities - no doubt out there and being watched but doesn't satisfy our standards of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geeks.com[edit]

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

Article about a company, referenced exclusively to its own self-published "about us" page on its own website with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about it in real media. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we are an encyclopedia, not a business directory, and inclusion here depends on passing WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Older reviews have references to coverage in the San Diego Business Journal which wouldn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A Slashdot post claims it shut down in 2013, but that appears inaccurate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CBE recipient; therefore, meets ANYBIO. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Vernon-Jackson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, who is not reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to every city councillor who exists -- city councillors only get that in internationally prominent global cities on the order of New York City or London, and in any city outside that rarefied class they get articles only if the sourcing marks them out as a special case over and above most other city councillors. But the references here aren't doing that at all: two are his own primary sources about himself (his profile on the city's website and his own LinkedIn résumé), one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in purely routine election coverage, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about the death of his mother, and only one source is about him in any non-trivial way. But there's not a city councillor on the planet who couldn't show one reliable source, so that isn't enough sourcing all by itself to make a city councillor notable. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recipient of the CBE, which we have always held to be notable under WP:ANYBIO #1. Also not just any councillor, but leader of the council of a major city. As Portsmouth has the cabinet system, that means his post is essentially an executive position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being leader of the council is no notability freebie in and of itself, and "major city" has nothing to do with the notability criteria for city councillors. A city councillor must serve in an internationally famous global city, such as New York City, Toronto or London, to get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing — outside of that range, a city councillor (even the leader of the council) qualifies for inclusion only if he or she can be referenced to nationalizing coverage that marks him or her out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. There is no loophole in there for council leaders in non-global but still subjectively "major" cities — it's either "global city" or "sourced well enough to be special", and there are no grey areas anywhere in between those two things. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you'd like to explain why we have so many articles on mayors of American cities much smaller than Portsmouth that get kept at AfD? That seems to me to be a precedent for the executive heads of cities of this size to be kept. But be that as it may, his CBE still qualifies him for an article. And there is massive precedent for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I apologise that it's taken me so long to respond here, but as Leader of the Council of a major city and the recipient of a CBE (as Necrothesp notes above me), he fulfils the needed criteria to be 'notable'. Issues with citing and referencing are my fault, which I do apologise for. BitterGiant (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to City region. Mz7 (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of European city regions[edit]

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

Unsourced, incomplete and too ill-defined ever to be completed, overlaps with List of metropolitan areas in Europe#Polycentric metropolitan areas in the European Union Batternut (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be similar with other Wikipedia articles and hence I also don't think it would be worthwhile to complete comprehending the fact that the article does not seem quite relevant for the topic. Denver| Thank you (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I couldn't quickly find sources to back this up, but I do lean keep as city region is a defined term which has been the subject of academic research and a list of them might be a valid split. The biggest current problem with the article is a lack of sources, not its incompletion or definition. SportingFlyer talk 18:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect [was "Merge"], probably to City region, which already includes links to a number of these, and which could easily include a proper list (it is not a very long article, no need to split this out). This current list-article doesn't link to city region though, and there is no supporting source for any of the items being identified as "city regions", so the current list-article seems very weak. Development of a list back in the context of a defined term and some sources, etc., would be better. The entire content here could be copy-pasted to Talk:City region with a request that the items be considered for inclusion in that article. --Doncram (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Redirect" from "Merge" as it seems maybe there is no content that should be merged, given question below by User:Batternut about very few entries actually claiming to be city regions. Redirect is okay as an alternative to deletion which saves the original list in edit history, in case anyone wants to resurrect a few items later, if they can separately find relevant sources. It is helpful to know that part of this (the only portion with a source?) was copied from the city region article. There is no need for a list to be split out from the city region article, which is short. --Doncram (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many entries in this list do not have articles, many are Eurodistricts (= transnational urban areas), some are just local enterprise partnerships, a very UK specific entity. Very few entries actually claim to be city regions - in the other cases it seems to be pure OR to call them city regions. Some may be pure fiction, eg the "Venetian Triangle". The definition was copied in 2015 from the city region article. Batternut (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (as proposer), for the reasons given by Doncram (above). Batternut (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed by Doncram. Article content is garbage and I doubt if anyone is ever going to improve it. No accepted definition of what actually qualifies to be included. Lyndaship (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a relevant article that has "city region" in the title. City regions are city regions, not to be confused with anything else. wumbolo ^^^ 21:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revivent[edit]

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

Article on a product which is supported by two medical studies, both sponsored by the company. No independent sources. Creator has no other areas of interest. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Hey Guy, so PMID 29435772 and PMID 28741245 are both reviews; they are not "studies". Both of the reviews discuss several devices currently on the market. Neither review article cites funding by BioVentrix. One of the authors PMID 29435772 has a disclosure that "Tobias Schmidt receives lecture honoraria from CardioKinetix and Bioventrix." The other review has no disclosures at all, oddly, but none of the authors work for BioVentrix.

I agree that this article is minimal, but in my view it is valid.

With regard to the creator, see what they said here. No paper that was originally cited is still in the page, so even WP:SELFCITE is not relevant anymore.

And as noted above, with regard to "supported by two medical studies, both sponsored by the company. No independent sources." None of those three clauses is accurate. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jytdog's assessment. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Jytdog rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh Kulkarni[edit]

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

This is borderline notability, but simply doesn't quite pass. He directed one film, so doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER, none of his acting roles have been significant, so he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and there's not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Janela[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler Galatz ^Talk 15:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 15:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had done a search after I saw the article for the first time and I could find nothing in a Google search to support the claim of notability as a professional wrestler. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbakhsh Singh Kala Afgana[edit]

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

I found this page and its talk page sitting deleted under pages Kala Afgana (about a village) and Talk:Kala Afgana. Is it worth keeping? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources indicate at all that his work is impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Google search for his name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbbarker19: In adding those sources, do you feel like it meets the threshold of notability? Sadads (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources references have been added to the article which shows that the subject passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails to garner non-trivial significant coverage in independent and reliable sources.Let's analyse the references:-
- Ref (1)--No known editorial policy.Fails the requirement of being a reliable source. N
- Ref (2)--Self-declared advocacy site.The mention in the source is trivial.N
- Ref (3)--Clear-cut Sikh Advocacy site.Another trivial mention. N
- Ref (4)--A biography at Site (2).The bio cites a bunch of independent sources except that all of them are used to support general commentary and almost none mentions Afghana. N
- Ref(5)--Reliable source.Mentioned in a list of people who has been excommunicated.?~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Parvardigar Prayer. Content worth merging (if any) is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O Parvardigar (film)[edit]

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

Since, everybody is free to remove a PROD, without addressing the reason(s) for in reliable and independent sources, as nomination, we're here to seek the view of the broader community on the issue.

I'm unable to find/locate any non-trivial coverage of the film demanded by our general notability guideline or by our subject-specific guideline.

It may be noted that all the sources that are currently in the article or were attempted by the creator to be inserted in the article fails one of our core guidelines about the reliability of self-published-sources and does not lend any to notability. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Hoverfish, as a co-participant in many of the discussions, on the same locus.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should actually be listed on the India WikiProject page here and the WikiProject Film talk page, here. This is a film. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-ntable short film, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant work of Meher Baba. Notable article please consider (WP:INDAFD)). Accesscrawl (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:AADD.And, it's expected that since both the nominator (me) and the other !voter (GSS) are Indian, we ought be able to exploit Indian sources...~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There has been no presentation of any 3rd party sources covering this work at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Pete Townshend connection to the film constitutes a source, and this film is listed on the Townshend template as one of three DVD's attributed to the singer/songwriter. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Source, please? And, I've removed this article from Pete's discography template since the inclusion makes precisely zero sense.Also, see about our prohibition on circular referencing.∯WBG^converse 01:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - A source that the film exists and is prominent? Already on the page. I know it is unhelpful to your attempt to remove this article from Wikipedia that Pete Townshend, a notable and prominent singer-songwriter, is heavily involved. I've reverted your edit on the Townshend template, and now I see that you've put a notability and other tags on Townshend's album of the same name. Yes, Pete Townshend is heavily involved, but removing mention of that from pages and templates on Townshend on an encyclopedia is not the way to precede. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No body is doubting the existence of the film.We are doubting it's prominence, in that it has failed to secure any major reviews/independent coverage.Best,∯WBG^converse 08:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Parvardigar Prayer. There is a reliable source attesting to the existence of the film and Townshend's participation in it in the book Who Are You: The Life Of Pete Townshend, p, 318. Omnibus Press. However, that's not enough for a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A good source, and more than a trivial mention. This is actually enough to establish the notability of this article. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I provided it, in my view, that source does not establish sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Townshend is very notable, but that does not make any and every entity with which he has been associated de facto notable if there is not sufficient in-depth coverage of the entity itself. Note that a merge would not preclude adding the piped redirect to Template:Pete Townshend. Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's little properly-sourced stuff to merge.Basically, the existence is demonstrated.A redirect, at best.∯WBG^converse 09:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to SM Supermalls. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Manila[edit]

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

Found no independent reliable sources establishing notability. The page was unilaterally redirected by Oripaypaykim, and a "new" article was "created" and unilaterally draftified by BugMenn. Since the page has existed as an article since 2008, it is better to have an AfD in mainspace rather than to apply G13 as a draft. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing - can't quite follow what happened there re draftifying back and forth, and apparently in lieu of some deletion process...? - Anyway. I can find plenty of passing mentions as well as promotional material by the proprietors, but no independent substantial coverage, which would suggest delete.--Elmidae (talk · contribs)
(Absent location of additional sources) Redirect to SM Supermalls. I checked for sources and couldn't find much of anything, but it's difficult to look given that there is so much junk containing the phrase "SM City Manila". 15:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Redirect to SM Supermalls. No evidence of notability. This was already redirected and restarted by an known disruptive editor: [3]. Ajf773 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foivos Christodoulou[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Cypriot First division is fully pro. While accurate, Christodoulou has not played in this league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and fails WP:NFOOTBALL having not yet played in a professional league. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above fails the notabilt requirements, at the age of 20 this is obviously WP:TOOSOON and article can always be recreated if and when subject meets said notability guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Glue (cannabis)[edit]

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

Part of a cleanup related to cannabis strains where a proliferation of poorly sourced variety articles were redirected if they didn't pass WP:GNG but at least had reliable sourcing in terms of WP:MEDRS or independent mainstream sourcing.

This strain doesn't pass either metric though. The company itself, Gorilla Glue Strains, was sued by Gorilla Glue for trademark infringement, which could be worth mention at the Gorilla Glue page, but that doesn't WP:INHERIT for individual strain notability (if it did, it would be similar to WP:1E). What we're basically left with is pretty much only coverage in cannabis enthusiast sources or other low quality sources like Leafly or Allbud that have been regularly deleted as unreliable in other strain articles and don't establish GNG through truly independent sources.

Without sources that would qualify for a merge to cannabis strains, the only option left seems to be delete. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I (power~enwiki (π, ν)) am bundling the following article, as it is on the same topic:

Blaze it - Sources are from catalogues of marijuana strains, and therefore only prove existence. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 16:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am bundling Gorilla Glue 4 (cannabis) into this AfD; the same argument applies to both pages (which are effectively the same). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Jwele Jaai (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I did a google search and found absolutely nothing to justify its inclusion in the encyclopedia... — F R ⁺ 07:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — F R ⁺ 07:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — F R ⁺ 07:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said in the first nom, it aired on a national Indian channel, which easily clinches WP:N. Plus your nom incredibly fails WP:BEFORE; more than a Google search is required to determine if a nom is justified. Several search tools are listed in this nom; use them. Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:TVSHOW In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.. Please provide reliable independent in-depth coverage of the subject if you can find any. — F R ⁺ 05:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have the WP:BURDEN of proving your case. By stating all you did was a Google search (and not using local resources), you have proven that you have not. We might be the English Wikipedia, but just because something isn't notable in the English-speaking world, doesn't mean zero notability automatically. Nate • (chatter) 00:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You found the wrong person...I am from West Bengal and know Bengali. I did the Google search in both English and Bengali (Where I was most likely to find significant reliable secondary coverage). — F R ⁺ 06:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, extremely poorly written, and no indication of notability for a topic that is rarely notable (Indian TV shows). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and non-notable. All sources on the web point to a film with the same name. MT Train^Talk 13:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Hernandez[edit]

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

Businessman of insufficient personal notability. Sources consist of a puff interview, register entries, and incidental mentions. His companies might rate more attention (didn't check on that) but he personally seems to fail WP:NBIO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: search of subject results in numerous RS, easily passes WP:BASIC. BelBivDov (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using the above tools to search for Harvey in Google News yields many RS featuring him in an 'expert' capacity. Examples include several articles in The Real Deal, an interesting piece from Curbed, and a few passing mentions in Forbes articles, among others. All combined, I think this is a case of WP:HASPOT, in which case the proper course would be tag, not delete. BelBivDov (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding WP:HASPOT. It does not mean that "there are potentially sources out there", it means that "it is possible to write an in-depth article using sources shown to exist". Soundbites, quotes and passing mentions (and I don't know what's there supposed to be in the first link at all...?) do not constitute such sources. Where's the substantial secondary coverage of the man himself? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my first link didn’t quite come through. I intended to share The Real Deal tag for Harvey, which contains numerous articles written about him and his RE activity du jour. I’m reminded of the fragment from WP:Basic, “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability...“ and wonder if it’s applicable here. Would be interested in other editors’ thoughts. BelBivDov (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Quoted and interviewed by Forbes, Sun Sentinel and The Real Deal multiple times. Meets Notability Guildelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N requires sources that "address the topic directly and in detail". Passing mentions and quotes don't count. – Joe (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This subject has clear notability. He is a reference in his field. — 2601:644:400:52F7:6199:8521:E7E0:CAC7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Promotional. Deb (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Capricorn[edit]

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

The article was created in April. No valid source has been included. It is already included on the article of InterCity Express (Queensland Rail). I see no reason that it should have its own page. Reb1981 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is about a service; InterCity Express (Queensland Rail) is about the rolling stock which operated that service. They're different topics and it makes sense to have different articles. Mackensen (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I can verify the service ran from Brisbane to Rockhampton [4] but nothing else. The notability guidelines for train routes are only just above existence; perhaps @Tdhla1: can comment as-to how they wrote the article. I'm not opposed to a merge in principle, but I don't feel InterCity Express (Queensland Rail) is a good target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Voice and Speech Trainers Association. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voice and Speech Review[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. None of the listed indexing services are even remotely selective (and several, such as GScholar or Microsoft Academic Search, are simply trivial). One independent source, which is just an in-passing mention. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was created by a SPA, Rockfordsansom, presumably the same person as the journal's editor-in-chief. --Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete it and put me out of my misery. Really, I’m not kidding. I can’t believe I’ve had to spend hours and hours (around 20 different edits) trying to put up 80 words about a journal. It’s absolutely absurd, and it borders on harassment. I was just trying to do something nice, and I’ve never regretted anything more in my life. You all win. I will never dare to touch the almighty Wikipedia again, and I will be deleting my account. Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockfordsansom (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Perhaps you should keep the text of the contested article and put it through the draft process. I'm sure you will find it most useful. As an aside, I had also created articles that were deleted. I learned not to get upset about it. I tried instead to improve my editing. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NJOURNALS. -The Gnome (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a potential merge target at Voice and Speech Trainers Association. I'd rather see a merge, than a delete here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking as well. XOR'easter (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is always to be preferred to deletion, provided there is something worthwhile from which to merge. -The Gnome (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Voice and Speech Trainers Association article has its own problems. A merge/redirect there (so long as that page exists) seems like a good option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aamar Durga[edit]

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

How can we allow such idotic stuff to exist escapes me....Absolutely no indepth coverage... It was one of the BEST serials running in this period, not only showcasing new talent alongside established ones, but the quality of histrionics and the pace of the serial was a refreshing change from the drab regressive pseudo-religious or farcical family soaps dished out elsewhere.
The show was suddenly and unfortunately discontinued on October 21, 2017 after its 553 episode — F R ⁺ 07:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've removed the blatantly POV lines from the article. While I agree it's unfortunate the lines lasted several months, that doesn't really answer the question of notability. WP:NTV says that "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience", which this show seems to satisfy. More conclusive would be better sourcing, which is a little difficult since most of the relevant articles seem to be in Bengali. But Ebela, which seems to have a print component and editorial control, has several articles on the show, including [5] and [6]. I found several more passing mentions of the show related to its positive portrayal of women in other reliable outlets. MarginalCost (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarginalCost-I am a native speaker of Bengali. Among the two sources one is an interview of actors and actresses the other is the typical coverage almost every serial gets before its launch. As per WP:GNG we need in-depth and sustained coverage by reliable secondary sources. Can you just link the many reliable outlets which have covered the subject of the article in either Bengali or English.(It could be a filter bubble problem that I am having) — F R ⁺ 17:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I am relying on Google translate. The second article did indeed include video of a chat, but also had several paragraphs of original content above. (I already omitted an Ebela article that was solely an interview.) The more passing mention I was thinking of was the Times of India, though now looking back it seems the other articles I saw were about other uses of the phrase, not the TV show. Still, other articles include another Ebela article (autotrasnlated), and Tellychakkar.

I agree that these articles are not as in-depth as would be ideal. (I will point out that, contrary to your quote, "in-depth" is not part of the GNG, but "significant" is.) But they are above the threshold for WP:ROUTINE, as they evaluate the merits of the work, and in some cases comment on its significance - they're not just a listing of air times and cast members. Combined with WP:NTV's guidance for widely-aired shows, I think the best move is to keep. MarginalCost (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the TellyChakkar source is reliable. They seemed to be focused more on bringing the latest gossip to the reader rather than verifiability. We seem to disagree on whether the interviews contribute towards notability or not. The Times of India article is exactly the sort of coverage that is needed but one source does not add up to much. Lets see what other people think — F R ⁺ 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kalimbwe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephraim Kagwa: queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Speedy delete nomination was G4. Open SPI for page creator at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ephraim Kagwa — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't see the notability for this person being sufficiently established. Strikerforce^Talk 14:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN individual. reddogsix (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see notability asserted in sources. Just a promo piece. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staniewski[edit]

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

Major WP:OR issue, likely created by someone related to said family and trying to promote it on Wikipedia. There's no historical research discussing a Polish noble family of that name in more then passing (yes, some people with that name had that coat of arms, but that doesn't make the family notable - that requires sources saying the family was important, etc.). The best I found was an entry in Polish encyclopedia [7] - but it describes this family as notable in the context of... circus performers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prune heavily (or delete) -- The part about the noble family is probably correct and notable, but this is being used as a handle to house short bio-articles on people who have the surname (but are not nobles) and are probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm happy to be wrong, but I agree with Piotrus that there doesn't seem to be and research into this family as a family group. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Involvement of this movie in Butterflies seems to minor to warrant a merge and as it is not mentioned in the article on that movie, a redirect seems to be unnecessary. Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australia (1992 film)[edit]

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

As per page 2 of this article, the film was "cancelled after a week’s shoot owning to budget factors." Content from this may be transferred to Butterflies since scenes from this film were used there. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Butterflies (1993 film) per nom. This film is not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 09:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the need or point in a redirect seeing as they are still two distinctly different films. You would redirect if it's relevant, however the scenes I assume are used in a different context and thus if this film was axed early on, then the scenes were never published as part of this film. The article can be deleted, as any remote chance someone may search will not be for the reason of searching for the scenes that were used in the other film. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aajke[edit]

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

Absolutely no sources.....Delete — F R ⁺ 07:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is merely eleven words long save for a note about who the producer is, and the article cites no sources at all. Vorbee (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find sources to support a page in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NFILM. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Aari Kal Bhab[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources found....Delete — F R ⁺ 07:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because IMDb is not a valid source. Also WP:GNG not pass. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 08:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Jadwat[edit]

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

Columnist with News24 with no WP:RS, the one i could find was self published. Fails WP:CREATIVE Edidiong (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom that the subject cannot pass WP:CREATIVE. 2Joules (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bimini Brothers[edit]

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

Not notable, seems to have a bit [8] of coverage in the local and specialized press. Otherwise just seems to be a WP:MILL band which fails notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norminator. Edidiong (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smoked Out, Loced Out[edit]

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

Multiple examples of in-depth secondary coverage does not exist for this album/mixtape. As NALBUM states: That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Coverage, chart listings, and/or notable awards covert notability -- none of which are evident here. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage that would suggest that the album meets NALBUM. — sparklism ^hey! 09:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unremarkable mixtape; does not meet WP:ALBUM. No sources present nor found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as no consensus to delete. Article has been improved over initial nomination's version, and the keep !vote is persuasive as well. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Sakhalkar[edit]

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

Models and film actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. I am not finding major roles in multiple films/tv shows therefore fails WP:ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Saqib (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ACTORBIO. FITINDIA 11:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "delete", but was notified on my talk page that the article was edited to add sources just after the last "delete" opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough reputed citations have been added, plus multiple notable film credits including lead roles easily satisfies Wikipedia:NACTOR criteria of notability so keep it. I would recommend adding a stub tag so the article can be further expanded someday, but no point in deleting it. JayB91 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rummy Passion[edit]

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

No significant sources to indicate notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH FITINDIA 05:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divine.ca[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although this was kept 10 years ago, our criteria for notability have tightened considerably since then, and I believe the time has come for review.

This website does not appear to pass the criteria of WP:GNG, WP:NMAG (treating it as a magazine), or WP:NWEB (treating it as a website). Significantly, I was not able to find any in-depth discussion of the website itself anywhere, and there is nothing to indicate that it has made a significant impact in its field. Some ROUTINE sources exist in the form of business announcements ("Jane Doe joins staff of Divine.ca" etc), but nothing non-routine that would indicate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per PMC's nomination. Unremarkable publication / web content. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G.a.s. Drummers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. No evidence of major releases on major labels or extensive coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was the best (only) piece of coverage that I could find, and their link to BCore Disc doesn't help much either (since that label doesn't appear particularly notable). It looks like these guys are slightly ahead of WP:WHYNOGARAGE, as they've clearly toured and released their music, but I still think they fail the guidelines for inclusion at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 07:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NBAND. I really tried to find information about this band, who are definitely still active, but nothing indicates that they pass the notability guidelines. The article was created in 2006 by a SPA who clearly knew the band well, and has barely been touched since then, save for a brief update in 2011 by an IP based in the Cadiz province where the band is from. Since 2006, the band has released two more studio albums, a compilation album of B-sides and previously unreleased material, and their most recent release was a live album in 2016, recorded in 2013. Their two most recent albums are only available digitally through their own Bandcamp website, bar a limited edition of 500 vinyl LPs released via a small independent label based in Granada in southern Spain. I don't believe this website is an RS [9], but I looked at the list of concerts at the bottom of the article, which are all local to southern Spain and include two small festivals in 2017 where the band was at the bottom of the bill [10], [11] (note that for the former festival, G.A.S. Drummers' lead singer was also the organiser of the terrace party). There's another non-noteworthy festival here from 2015 where they were again the opening act [12]. They toured Canada last year, but as the third-on-the-bill opening act to Propagandhi and Iron Chic. The venue where their 2016 live album was recorded is in Cadiz and has a capacity of 200 people. I know hardcore punk isn't the type of genre to appeal to the mainstream and sell out stadia worldwide, but if after nearly two decades of activity you're only playing to 200 people in your home province, and you are bottom of the bill at non-notable festivals in your home county, that isn't a good indication that you pass WP:NBAND. I think the only thing that could save this article is an editor who is a fan of this music and knows where to find reliable sources about this genre. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per article improvements made subsequent to nomination. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mawuena Trebarh[edit]

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

I don't think the notability requirements for biographies are met for this article. This is the only vaguely reliable, independent coverage of her. Otherwise it is routine hirings and firings: [13] [14] or interviews about her employer [15]. Further, per the comments at User_talk:Kweiqf relating to edits made in 2011, and the promotional tone of the article, it's highly likely that the article was created by an already blocked undisclosed paid editor: WP:TNT. SmartSE (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After researching this person, they appear to be notable in Ghana, as she's received articles in several of Ghana's biggest English news sources. I have added more sources to the article, and removed some of the promotional wording. The article now passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curious Brewery[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, was tagged with this concern, but the tag was removed without any additions that substantially changed the article. 2Joules (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was updated to provide details that were missing that resulted in initial WP:NCORP fail. Article was improved to give greater unbias and clarity on organisation. User:Rc curiousbrewery (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No GNG concerns were met, your username suggest COI problems and you were the creator of the page under deletion. 2Joules (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment per WP:SOCKSTRIKE ☆ Bri (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Notability not established per WP:NCORP. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability for this run-of-the-mill brewery. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or an alternative Yellow Pages. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty (musician)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and I can find no significant coverage online in WP:RS. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Olive Records. TMG^talk 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References both in article and BEFORE do not indicate subject passes WP:MUSICBIO, nor the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable musician. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found to support this artist currently meets [[WP:MUSICBIO]] or [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]]. Sam Sailor 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Underworld (novel)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable book by non-notable writer." Article de-PRODded after addition of a single short review. Does not meet WP:NBOOKS, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, uh,oh, according to WorldCat less then 25 libraries holding this title, found a review by the Historical Novel Society here but will need more. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the 2 reviews linked in the article and here are all that exist. Book is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this book has two book reviews then it satisfies NBOOK. I personally would accept one because I don't think there is any point in requiring multiple sources. James500 (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Dozovic[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. He is just a develoment talent in WWE's farm territory. Just had a few matches. Too soon for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - wrestler is an active member of WWE's televised roster, article has significant independent coverage. Dannys-777 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "significant independent coverage" looks like wp:routine. Most of the sources are just a few televised matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking through the page and the sources I think its enough to meet WP:GNG. Although he might not meet it for professional or amateur, I think combined there is enough. - Galatz ^Talk 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not particularly notable as a pro wrestler (yet) but might be notable for that and everything else combined.LM2000 (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reef Dispensaries[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP , as its claim of notability is that it produces cannabis for prominent rappers. Fails WP:GNG as well, it was featured in news for one day, then largely ignored. 2Joules (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage such as [16] is trivial. [17] is not, but is in a media outlet that probably should be given little weight. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5, and title salted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way.com[edit]

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

Article deleted as g11 Way_(company) by a sock and created under another name. Fails WP:NCORP notably CORPDEPTH. The sources are either passing mentions, a Huffpost WP:INTERVIEW directory listings dubious human interest stories about the founder having inspired Erlich Bachman's character, in sources this has been denied by all concerned, and a dubious looking article from Inc.com see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage. Probably needs to be salted Dom from Paris (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril A. Pandelisev[edit]

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

His company may be notable enough, but he is not. I am not even convinced about the company, but that is for another debate. 2Joules (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Omotosho[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Leader of a local party with no representation in senate and only one seat (not his) in the assembly. Maybe a merge? Although I am for deletion. Previuos discussion, two years ago, also favoured delete. 2Joules (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satifies WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. There's no such thing as a "Local political party", National political party can be substituted for that instead. Subject has significant press coverage, in depth coverage and otherwise. It was previously deleted because the article was overly promotional in 2015. Article needs minor cleanup Edidiong (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mredidiongekong, coverage is marginal at best. Nothing significant enough for a wiki entry. Furthermore this could be a promotional hoax according to this news report 2Joules (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@2Joules Yes, Omotosho is not the Chairman of Labour Party (Nigeria), but he is a notable politician. According to INEC Nigeria Abdukadir Abdulsalam is the Chairman of the Labour Party, that fact is not disputed. If you check, WP:NPOL Criterion 3, it says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", currently the article needs to be rewritten and cleaned up. Edidiong (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is actually quite a bit more complicated than it might appear if you read only the link that 2Joules provided above — if you follow all of the news about this instead of cherrypicking just one story, there's actually a dispute between the party, which recognizes Omotosho as its chairman, and the electoral commission, which is refusing to do so and accusing him of "impersonating" Abdukadir Abdulsalam, even though Abdulsalam was removed from the chairmanship on fraud charges last year and nobody in the party is confused by any purported impersonation on Omotosho's part. So there is or was a dispute between the party and INEC about who is or isn't the rightful chairman of the party, and that's very clearly a notable political story regardless of Omotosho's status. That said, obviously the article needs to do a better job of covering the dispute than it does right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat yes there was a dispute but it has been resolved and according to the Independent National Electoral Commission, Abdukadir Abdulsalam is the right chairman. Edidiong (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. The dispute is notable in and of itself regardless of how it resolved. If an event article can be written about the dispute itself, then I'd be comfortable switching my vote to "redirect to that article" — but the dispute itself is notable enough to Nigerian politics, regardless of how it did or didn't resolve, that we should rightly maintain some form of content about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Omotosho is actually a notable Politician in Nigeria and political disputes are quite normal in Nigeria especially as to party Chairmanship or not. Labour Party has had two elected Governors in the last 16 years of Nigeria's Democracy. The said man contested the General elections in Kwara state, a North Central state in Nigeria. Ladispeaks (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting a general election, but not winning it, is not a notability criterion for a politician. Notability derives from holding office, not just from being a candidate for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article needs massive cleanup if kept. I don't quite understand the controversy regarding his position as head of the Labour Party of Nigeria; but note it's not a position that would meet any SNG so the resolution isn't relevant to notability. Whether this meets GNG is unclear to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Cuenca[edit]

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

This is a borderline attack page. Not enough coverage is present to pass GNG. 2Joules (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject is a major figure in the Martial Law era in the Philippines. The subject is a major backer of former President Ferdinand Marcos, and was one of the most prominent businessmen during Marcos' administration. Though the tone needs work.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but fix tone) - Concurring with Hariboneagle927's assessment above. A cursory search for literature about Cuenca shows that he receives prominent coverage in virtually every major scholarly work about monopolies during the Martial Law period, including Abinales and Amoroso (2017); Shirmer (1987); Manapat (1991); Celoza (1997); Sidell (1999); Studwell (2010), and so on. Search results for News articles also produce a trove of results, ranging from the Marcos era to the early 2010s. The subject is definitely notable. The tone of the article just has to be fixed. That's difficult, because much of even the scholarly literature on Cuenca has a negative slant. But perhaps the original editor (or whomever chooses to take over the article) can be as careful as possible using adjectives in the narrative? I'd volunteer to help out but I'll be preoccupied for at least another month, so I can't commit to doing cleanup here. - Alternativity (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

""Keep"" I vote to keep, but definitely need to fix tone and add sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missvangie (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Dark[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:TVSHOW, as it is a TV program that was not nationally broadcast: indeed, "public-access" shows should be presumed to be non-notable, unless shown to be otherwise by independent sourcing (as per WP:GNG). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Marvel Comics characters: Z. Merged in this edit. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG.

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: Z. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - In the past, a comic character crossing into other media is one of my criteria for establishing notability, but the proliferation of comic adaptations in recent years has led to lots of cameos and minor roles for minor characters. I don't think he merits a standalone article, but I can see some value to keeping a minimum of information about his creators and first appearance. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, if a reliable secondary source can be found, and trim the bio right down to the essentials, rather than plot summary.--Killer Moff (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Montez Ford[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. He is just a develoment talent in WWE's farm territory. Just had a few matches. Too soon for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a member of WWE's televised roster who has been prominently featured for over a year with numerous TV victories. Clearly notable. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He barely has any notable matches. He doesn't have any notable feud or storyline. Just random matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could say that about almost every single wrestler in WWE at present. Dawkins and Ford are part of the TV roster, the fact that they don't currently have a 'notable storyline' is completely irrelevant. They have been featured and pushed on TV for a year and won dozens of matches. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking through the sources (currently there are 8). 4 of them are wwe.com which I consider WP:PRIMARY for this and cannot be used to establish notability. 1 is just a photo of the new NXT class, and 1 is cagematch which is a RS but not for establishing notability. The Wrestling Observer report is just a basic injury report, nothing to establish notability. That leaves just the Miami Herald article, which to me is not enough to establish notability. - Galatz ^Talk 17:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The I.P.'s comments don't particularly cite policy; mind you, neither do User:HHH Pedrigree's. User:Galatz's comments do address WP:GNG, but deal only with the sources currently in the article—they do not appear to consider the possibility that other sources may exist (or they may not). I think there's room for further discussion to accomplish something here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't turn up significant independent coverage. What I found were listings of results, fight announcements, injury reports, etc. WP has traditionally viewed pro wrestlers as entertainers and I see nothing to show he meets that SNG. Competing for a developmental promotion also doesn't support a claim of notability nor do the article's references. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others, it just feels WP:TOOSOON. He fails WP:ENT for the time being.LM2000 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Systems Down (novel)[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable novel by a non-notable author. I can find very few independent reviews (although of course there is stuff on Amazon and Goodreads). There's no suggestion that it is a best-seller either. PROD was reverted by creator with the edit summary "1) Overzealous deletion goes against Wikipedia's assume good faith principle. 2) Notable reviews. To Be discussed more in talk section" but discussion on Talk page has not resulted in any consensus. Deb (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, here are additional references which I did not include in the original article. Do you think these would add to the notability claim? (Most aren't as strong as the Bend Bulletin and The Good Men's Project, from what I can tell.)

http://bookspin.blogspot.com/2018/02/on-my-radar_7.html X

http://cherylsbooknook.blogspot.com/2018/02/all-systems-down.html X

http://crystalbookreviews.blogspot.com/2018/02/all-systems-down-cyber-war-1-by-sam.html X

http://jensbookbag.com/coming-soon-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush/ X

http://mimi-cyberlibrarian.blogspot.com/2018/02/all-systems-down.html X

http://redcarpetcrash.com/interview-author-sam-boush-talks-new-book-systems/ - Unsure

http://www.iheartreading.net/author-interviews/author-interview-all-systems-down/ - X

http://www.lorisreadingcorner.com/2018/02/guest-post-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush.html - X

http://www.premeditatedfiction.com/book-review-systems-cyber-warbook-1/ X

https://books-reviewed.weebly.com/fiction/all-systems-down X

https://deborahkalbbooks.blogspot.com/2018/02/q-with-sam-boush.html X

https://journalingonpaper.com/2018/02/02/book-review-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush/ - X

https://lovelyloveday.com/2018/02/08/all-systems-down-by-sam-boush-review/ - X

https://mrsreadsbooks.com/2018/02/08/arc-review-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush/ - X

https://okbolover.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/everything-runs-amok-in-pdx/ - X

https://saexaminer.org/2018/02/04/book-review-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush/ - X

https://whisperingstories.com/advice-aspiring-novelists-sam-boush-guest-post/ - X

https://www.eagarediting.com/single-post/2018/02/09/Book-Review-All-Systems-Down X

Deb, I fixed all the links. Put X next to all but one, per your comment. Bmax52 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedia Puppy, and this is my first or second article. I Want to make sure I'm doing it right. Bmax52 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and Wordpress pages aren't normally considered reliable references, which eliminates practically all the above from consideration. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Deb (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets the basic threshold for an article about a book; 1) published, 2) has an ISBN, and 3) is independently reviewed or has a source of notability. WP:BKTS Knobbly (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable" Deb (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Knobbly. Meeting the "threshold" criterion you're offering means that the book actually exists. Was there ever any doubt about that? -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"How long is a piece of string?" We have a basic standard for articles about books and this one meets it, however, the book is clearly not famous or important, so where is the cut-off point? Who determines that lesser-known books shouldn't have an article? It meets the basic threshold for an article about a book and therefore qualifies to be in Wikipedia. Maybe there was a time years ago when you needed a dozen sources of notability, but the tendency across Wikipedia is now is for articles about most topics, books, people or events as long as certain basic criteria are met. Knobbly (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that there is a tendency afoot in Wikipedia to have articles (you're missing a verb, there), Knobbly, on the basis of "basic criteria" alone. As to who determines that lesser-known books shouldn't have an article, I believe it is obvious that "lesser known" implies by definition fewer mentions in reliable sources, which is the criterion for Wikinotability. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you missed the Deletionism and inclusionism debate. If you favour deletionism, then clearly most articles like this one should be deleted. If you favour including a wide range of topics (as long as they meet certain agreed-upon basic standards) then this article should be kept. Knobbly (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I favor a case-by-case and on the basis of extant policy examination, each and every time. The article to which you linked is just a descriptive account of what has gone down. No tilt towards either direction, as a matter of practice, or formally. If I'm allowed to go off on a tangent here, I'd venture that English-language Wikipedia has a bigger proportion of editors on a paid assignment, contributors promoting their own interests, and kamikaze accountss, than it used to have. And this would explain the increasing number of AfDs: The neutral point-of-view is bypassed; quality is down; promotionalism is up. Difficult times ahead. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The increase in AfDs could equally be explained by publishing companies in competition with Wikipedia sending an increasing number of paid infiltrators to sabotage the project (and thereby eliminate the competition) by nominating everything for deletion. Or perhaps paid infiltrators masquerading as 'deletionists' are being sent by a government that doesn't like Wikipedia for political reasons and wants to destroy the project by deleting everything. All of this is, however, speculation because we do not know who our editors are. James500 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure if I get a vote here (article creator, WP Puppy). It appears the book passes WP:NBOOK based on the criteria: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Kirkus Reviews, Good Men Project, and Bend Bulletin. Bmax52 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do get a vote. However, the Bend Bulletin is a local publication with a relatively small circulation and you would expect it to give publicity to a local author. The Good Men Project review is very short and bordering on the promotional. Only Kirkus Reviews (which you seem to have copied the synopsis from) can really be considered a suitable source. This nomination isn't going anywhere at the moment and will probably have to be re-listed for us to get consensus. Deb (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, regarding the Bend Bulletin and your points: 1) The size of newspaper circulation is not mentioned in WP:NBOOK. In fact, it specifically states "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles...". 2) Further, the Bend Bulletin has a circulation in the tens of thousands. 3) The author, Sam Boush, is not from the Bend area, as mention in the article. "Sam Boush is a 36-year-old Portland author." For reference, Bend and Portland are 175+ miles apart. That's roughly New York to Baltimore. Bmax52 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, regarding the Good Men Project and your points: 1) I don't see length of article as one of the criteria for notability in WP:NBOOK; however, the article is 322 words, which doesn't seem particularly short to me. 2) My reading of the review is that it's promotional in some areas ("All Systems Down comes out tomorrow. You can purchase this book on Amazon and at Barnes and Noble") but not out of line with other reviews; and it's a genuine review through most of the article ("It was a book that painted a dire picture. When the cyber attacks happened, society panicked and many had no clue what to do next. It brought a group of unlikely allies together to try to survive this crisis." etc.).Bmax52 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is that my opinion of the book's notability is different from yours, and that's why the article is here, being nominated for deletion, rather than being already deleted. We need others to chip in and give their alternative views in order to reach consensus as to whether it should be kept or deleted. Deb (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Coverage in multiple book reviews satisfies GNG and NBOOK. The "local publication" argument advanced by the nominator is without merit. The circulation is not small, and even if it was, that is irrelevant. There's no reason to expect any periodical to review any books (many review none whatsoever), and even if there was, that's not relevant either. James500 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I'm a little confused about your argument, though it's probably my fault. You seem to be saying that argument A is "without merit" but even if it had merit it would be irrelevant. You add, as way of explanation, that "there is no reason" to have condition B in place, but "even if there was", the condition would also be irrelevant. What am I missing? -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(continuing from The Gnome's comment above). I think James is saying that (1) the "local publication" deprecation is not in the NBOOK or GNG guidelines. Separately (2) the claim that its circulation is small is not true and, even if it was true, that is not a germane criterion. (3) To expect publicity from a local paper is not a necessary expectation and, even if such publicity is to be expected, that is also not a consideration. Now this is rather at the limit of my parse-power (and maybe has gone beyond it) but I rather agree with James's claims that these aspects are not to be found in the notability guidelines. However, I don't think Deb is saying her objections are to be found there – she is simply saying she does not think the book is wiki-notable and is giving her reasons. That is fine by me. It is also fine for other people to have other opinions (as Deb kindly says). I'll go keep because I consider the criteria have been met and, in this case, I see no benefit in going against the presumption of notability. Thincat (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see what you mean. And what James500 probably meant, too. A point with which I strongly disagree is the presumption of notability. Unlike the judicial presumption of innocence, where the prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty, an article in Wikipedia is not presumed to be about a notable subject. Not at all! Editors and contributors, if and when this is needed, have to prove the subject is notable (or rather Wikinotable, as I like to call it, since Wikipedia has different criteria for notability than we have in our everyday lives). This is why we have so many policies and guidelines in Wikipedia about how to establish/prove notability. And not the other way around. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying "presumption of notability" in reference to "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right ..." at WP:N. So I should have said the "presumption towards meriting an article". But, hey, it all hangs out at W:N. The guideline says its criteria do not always apply (my paraphrasing on "occasional exceptions" and "common sense") so anyone who thinks you can never evaluate the criteria one way and vote the other is not (strictly) observing the guideline. Thincat (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability criteria for an independent article. Possibly can be revived in the future as part of an article about the book's author, if and when Wikipedia has an article about the author, which it does not. Not notable enough; notable authors have their work routinely mentioned in their articles. -The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author of a book does not have to satisfy AUTHOR for the book to be notable. The relevant criteria is NBOOK. James500 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the absence of a Wikipedia article on the book's author strictly because if we already had an article about the author the information about the book (in the contested article) could go in it. That's all. I agree, of course, that the author's notability per se does not affect the book's notability. Otherwise, we'd dismiss all books by anonymous authors! -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm also still concerned that the plot section is fairly obviously copied from the Kirkus review. I've asked the creator to fix this. And you can pay to get reviewed on-line by Kirkus. Deb (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, the reason I haven't re-written the summary is because it seems like a waste of time while the article is being discussed for deletion. Should I go ahead and do that anyway? Bmax52 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because theoretically it could be deleted as a copyright infringement, like what happened with Typhoon Fury (novel). Deb (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it's a copy or plagiarism it should be rewritten. However, despite the advice in the deletion notice at the head of the article "Feel free to improve the article", don't improve the referencing. Any further references are better included in this discussion. If you add better references to the article and it still gets deleted you will have WP:G4 to contend with because many editors will (wrongly) think you will then need even more references to allow recreation. Post any references here so you (or anyone else) can add them to a recreated article to give it a better chance. Thincat (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the plot copy. It no longer reflects the Kirkus Review. Bmax52 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deb, when does a discussion normally close? I was reading WP:GTD which states "The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus," and also, "Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep.'" However, it seems we have a rough consensus of keep though obviously your judgement is the deciding factor.Bmax52 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not up to me. Someone independent will close it in due course. Deb (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's a numerical majority for keep at this time, I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Good Men Project seems like a reliable source, 24 Wikipedia articles appearing in a search for their website. The review was detailed enough to count. Kirkus Reviews is of course a reliable source for book reviews. So the general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 06:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gobby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of any notability - no independent sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - lack of secondary coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted here, newly provided sources do actually seem sufficient to me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally deleted this on 23 May but was provided further sources (see afd talk). The delete voters are split on the sources so the obvious thing to do is obtain further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice towards a merge and redirect at a later date. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Shepherd[edit]

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

Very obviously WP:BLP1E. This should be deleted and salted. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd has moved beyond single event notability as described in WP:BLP1E, so to address WP:BLP1E's 3 criteria:

1) There are reliable sources describing her post-incident.
2) given the ongoing controversy around free-speech and academic freedom it is unlikely she will fade into obscurity
3) her role was the key focus of the original incident and has then given her a basis for subsequent activism.

Knobbly (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wilfrid Laurier University#2017 free speech controversy where it is already covered. This person may become notable enough for an article if she gets enough on-going coverage for activism, like Monica Lewinsky and David Hogg (activist), but it is WP:TOOSOON for an article independent of the college's article. Salting or full protecting a redirect would be overkill. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Lewinsky and David Hogg (activist) aren't good examples to prove WP:TOOSOON; Lewinsky because of her prominence in recent American politics and David Hogg because he's become the face of the Stoneman Douglas survivours and gun control protests. More comparable examples would be some of the lesser known surviours and activists like Ryan Deitsch or Alex Wind.Knobbly (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point went over your head; I was using those examples in opposition to the proposed WP:Salting of the article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I was jumping on your WP:TOOSOON argument without acknowledging your argument against salting, sorry. Knobbly (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lindsay Shepherd became a notable person in November 2017 and as subsequent coverage indicates remains a notable person, for example she received the Harry Weldon Canadian Values Award in May 2018, additionally there are are no lack of reliable sources atesting to her notability then and now. Knobbly (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ If the only coverage of Shepherd was that related to the initial incident then this would be a clear delete but she has clearly decided to use that incident as a springboard for further activities and lasting press coverage so I don't see any lingering BLP concerns. (I would also be fine with a deletion based on WP:TOOSOON as advocated above.) ElKevbo (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note, however, that the article must be rewritten if it's kept; right now it focuses almost exclusively on the one incident and makes an implicit argument for WP:BLP1e. If it cannot be rewritten to have a larger focus on Shepherd then it must be deleted on those grounds. ElKevbo (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent activism is entirely tied to the one incident, and it is too soon to know if that will be sustained in any meaningful way. See WP:SUSTAINED. This person may be notable one day but now it is WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my !vote to Delete. The arguments presented by those advocating to delete the article are convincing and I don't see how this article can be rewritten so it's not primarily focused on the precipitating incident. Of course, I remain open to the idea that the subject could become independently notable at a future date when an article would be appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant and lasting coverage since the incident, and thus meets WP:BLP1E and, more importantly, WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She came to the public eye less than a year ago. That is hardly "lasting" in the real world. I realize that 6 months is an infinity in the 24-hour news cycle and in social media. WP is neither. If you look at the sources there is only one outside of the timeframe of key events and that is about an award she was given last month..; about the key events. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the subject of the article has been well sourced and adequately describes the incident and moreover since this topic meets WP:BLP1E. Denver| Thank you (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has earned permanent notability by passing the will people still be looking for this article in ten years test as of yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if the material circumstances change, but nothing here is enduringly notable as of today. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since everything is well sourced and the incident attracted lots of media attention. I think this article can be expanded in the future and this kinds of articles will perhaps become a part of something bigger in the future. Very good and important article.MayMay7 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other stuff exists!" is generally not a good argument; "other stuff might eventually exist!" is worse. XOR'easter (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only "sustained" or "lasting" attention is itself a blip — a non-notable award due entirely to the original, singular incident. Circumstances might change, and if they do, the article can be created anew. WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON. (Also fails WP:PROF.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has received significant attention and interest; there has been, and continues to be, much media coverage, and she is clearly a relevant and notable figure for this reason. The article is very well sourced. I believe this article should be kept. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement but this is a BLP for many events. Heterodox Academy award is recent, speaking at the Humanist Association is recent. The lawsuit is ongoing and the drafting of a UBC free speech policy inspired by this is also ongoing. Connor Behan (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an obvious WP:BLP1E. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is textbook WP:BLP1E -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Weak keep. Clearly a notable story that deserves mention, but the individual probably does not satisfy WP:BLP. --George100 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because coverage has been lasting and significant. Meets WP:GNG and seems best covered in stand alone article. DynaGirl (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Lopatetskaya[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree with you, Dasha Lopatetskaya is notable player and she didn't fail WP:NTENNIS, cause there's a point No. 6, which says: "Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA". And she hold ITF record as she is the first woman of the 2003 year of birth, who enter ITF final, and first who won her first proffesional ITF tournament. I mention it in the article and left reference to it. And I think this is enough for not being deleted. OVVL ☺ 14:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea where that line in NTENNIS came from, or what even qualifies as a record, but winning an ITF $15k tournament doesn't confer notability, there's hundreds of these tournaments every year and there's nothing special about this one. Iffy★Chat -- 08:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the first person born in a particular year to be recognized by the international tennis federation at the level she was is in no way a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lopatetskaya has indeed been called up to the Ukranian Fed Cup team, and as such is listed on the FC website, but she ultimately did not play her scheduled doubles match. I assume that it cannot therefore be said that she has 'competed' at FC level yet. Dalek194 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 04:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammad Safi[edit]

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

Marginally notable whiz kid. Google search finds that the information in this article about him is the information on the web about him, which doesn't warrant an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This young genius has received sufficient coverage in reliable and reputable newspapers such as Dawn, International Business Times, Ary News and even has his own university profile. Dr Silverstein (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:GNG. Quite notable. Enough coverage.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mosques in Bangladesh. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shekh Bahar Ullah Jame Mosque[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect may be redirected to List of mosques in Bangladesh. samee converse 03:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Samee. I can't find any sources at all (probably variant spellings are an issue), but it seems unlikely to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GEOFEAT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article satisfies GNG following expansion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Nimue Ackerman[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable academic. Quis separabit? 01:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Not proven to fulfill specific criteria of notability. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 06:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after expansion by Grand'mere Eugene. WP:GNG seems proven. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 01:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when an article even bothers to mention the subject is a "frequent letter writer" to a newspaper, as opposed to at a minimum saying they have had op-ed pieces published by that paper, it is a sure sign the person is just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more inane even than your usual arguments for notability. She's not notable because she's notable for something, but it's something you don't think should be interesting so it doesn't count? I recently added to the article the information that she's a frequent letter writer because several reliable sources cover that aspect of her work. It is no more an argument against notability than any other source of minor fame. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article some, and based on her publications, The New Yorker profile, and the comments of the NYT letters editor, I believe she meets WP:GNG. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well published, cited and referenced full Professor at an ivy league university, accomplished also as a poet and author of fiction and letters to the press. I looked well beyond the citations in the article to establish WP:GNG at the very least. Thank you, Grand'mere Eugene, for improving the article! gidonb (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The expanded revision meets GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following Grand-Mère's sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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