< 1 June	3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Hunt (activist)[edit]

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

Fails notability, and mostly self published/cited sources e.g 100+ films he starred in are mostly Youtube links. He's featured in one Salon article Shushugah (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one actual true acting role mentioned is clearly not part of a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviewing the sources, there's virtually nothing to go on. The Salon article is the only one of note. The company that he owns, xrayultra.com, appears inactive/dead (no updates to the site in a year), and isn't apparently notable either. The claims of "His work has been profiled by Salon Magazine and many other media outlets around the globe." do not stand up to scrutiny. Ok, he's an actor. But, there's nothing to go on to begin to pass WP:NACTOR. Ok, he's an activist, but there's precious little to suggest him being a notable activist other than the Salon article (which is not enough by itself). Is he a musician? I can't find anything to suggest he's ever released any music. With the Salon article being apparently the only article where he is anything more than a passing reference, WP:GNG isn't met either. Of note; the original article was created by an account back in 2014 whose only edit was to create the article. They've not edited since. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bencino Carmine[edit]

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

Biography of an actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. He had one role that may have been fairly major per [1], in one season of a TV series (but not in earlier or subsequent seasons), and apart from that only a number of minor roles. Note that he has apparently changed his name recently, so earlier work is as Benny (or Benjamin) Ciaramello. bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep searching the 2nd version of his name I found coverage of his role as Santiago on Friday Night Lights and listings of other major roles in various sources. Seems to meet wp:actor. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which other major roles? As I pointed out above, the Friday Night Lights show might be considered major (albeit borderline, as he was only in one season of the show and apparently not one of the main characters in that season either), but as you know, WP:NACTOR specifies multiple significant roles. The other roles mentioned in the article are not major or significant. It would also be great if you listed the sources here (or, even better, added them to the article) since "There are sources" is not a particularly compelling argument when those sources are not identified. --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Delete (see discussion below) ~~Searching for "Benny Ciaramello" seems to return a number of results on film sites like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and AlloCiné. There are also news articles published on the man.~~ Hickland (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are not useful for the purpose of establishing notability as they contain mainly user generated content. I have checked all three websites you mention but can't find anything other than trivial listings of the person. The deadline.com link you added here is also a trivial mention, it is neither a news article nor an article about him. --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the late reply, this slipped under my radar) I agree that the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR. I also suppose that Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb are not reliable sources, and in the absence of any other reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, I concede. How can I change my vote? Hickland (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hickland: - sorry that no-one came along to answer the question. The usual method is to strikethrough your original answer with <s>Keep/Delete/Merge etc</s> and put in a new answer next to it (i.e. in the same bold answer bit). It is probably worth indenting a comment below explaining that you've changed your vote. Some people strike through the entirety of their comment and add a new !vote at the bottom. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks :) Hickland (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the strictness of WP:NACTOR with (multiple) major roles needed is sufficient to warrant the deletion of the article, though things like Secrets and Lies gets a small (large mentions in effect) coverage for his recurring roles. We may (or may not) also get some coverage via the production coverage work in the near future (lots of mentions of existence, no real bits yet). Therefore I'd say a weak delete with no prejudice against recreation once we get a couple of better sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 15:11, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Taylor[edit]

Support Deletion: Amina Taylor is a living bio, but fails notability requirements. I did a good faith lookup of her on Google search and scholar, which did not yield any results, besides for articles written by her. Shushugah (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not come even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL. Deb (talk) 15:13, 9 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manaal Sheeraz[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Dial911 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-There are only two reliable sources covering her, namely the two linked in the article....and both are interviews. — F R ⁺ 06:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only one prominent role so does not pass WP:NACTOR yet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 7 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. Sandstein 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Matthews[edit]

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

The four references for this blogger, though reliable, are either incidental mentions or not WP:INDEPENDENT. A BEFORE search was difficult given how common the name is, however, nothing jumped out. There is nothing in the content of the article that would indicate notability, either inherent or general, and it is largely a collection of his personal denouncements and grievances against various individuals, including questionably WP:BLP claims of incitement to murder. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the coverage rises to the level to pass the guidelines set down by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Commons[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines The Banner talk 21:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and NWEB. No reliable sources on the page or in my searches. Possibly promotional in nature? Nanophosis (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have noted above, fails WP:NWEB. I'm finding no secondary sources to support an article, and the sources that are on the article already are all primary sources, thus a failure of WP:GNG as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 6 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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans in Alabama[edit]

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

Wikipedia does not need a one sentence stub on the topic. It is a plausible topic, so can be redirected to African Americans, Demographics of Alabama or another article, but at the moment such a short article is not adding anything that cannot go in somewhere else. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a good rationale for deletion. Many articles start up as stubs which are then improved and added to. We do not delete articles just because they are stubs - provided they are notable and supported by RS in detail - which they are in this case, see here and [2]. We have articles about White people in Kenya, White people in Zimbabwe, White people in Zambia, etc. Should we start deleting them too? This article is very notable because according to the ref, African Americans make up the second largest population in that state. Most importantly, this was a slave state with gruesome treatment of slaves. Right up to the present, African Americans are the object of scorn and racial prejudice among White Americans. From a historical perspective this article can be greatly improved and deserves a stand alone article independent of African Americans and Demographics of Alabama. The African Americans in Alabama as well as African Americans in Mississippi have a unique history. I would like to see both improved. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Having articles for certain demographics in certain areas is common, and articles that are related to other articles don't need to be deleted or merged if they reliably expand upon the information. Additionally, being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Nanophosis (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was concerned with the initial comparable articles given in the first comment, but the last one works well as well as numerous others. Beyond a WP:OTHER argument there are clearly plenty of sources that can be found in a rapid BEFORE check. Without an actual argument being advanced by the nom, it seems both difficult and pointless to challenge on other grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a strong, compelling history of African Americans in Alabama. There are innumerable sources to fill this article. Indeed, the entire civil rights movement can not be discussed without discussing African Americans in Alabama and their impact on civil rights. There are also innumerable notable people from Alabama that should be on this article; Charlayne Hunter-Gault, Herbert Carter (pilot), Marva Collins, Jesse Owens, U. W. Clemon, Bernice King...and on and on and on. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - okay I realise it's a little odd to make this request after a relisting, but we now seem to be into SNOW territory, just the article was mainly missed the first time round, n'est pas? --Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Though i think there should be more about the history - slavery, desegregation, Selma etc. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demographics of Alabama. The present article is little more than a pointer to other articles in any case. Deb (talk) 15:15, 9 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. Sandstein 09:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geometrothermodynamics[edit]

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

This novel hypothesis does not seem to have gained any attention in the scientific community. The sources that directly mention this are either primary and unpublished (ie confined to preprint servers), and the others are just background material unrelated to the topic. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't think it is true that this has not got any peer reviewed attention. There are many published papers in both mathematical and physics journals. Mostly, they bear Quevedo's name or his colleagues, but there are some that appear to be entirely independent:
- Janke1, Johnston and Kenna, "Geometrothermodynamics of the Kehagias–Sfetsos black hole"
- Han and Chen, "Thermodynamics, geometrothermodynamics and critical behavior of (2+1)-dimensional black holes"

In this book

- Carroll, On The Emergence Theme Of Physics

the three-page section "Unified Legendre forms" appears to be entirely about geometrothermodynamics. Although the name does not appear until half-way down the first page, the paper ([26]) referenced at the beginning of the section as the subject of the section is one of Quevedo's papers. I find this book,

- Bellucci, Breaking of Supersymmetry and Ultraviolet Divergences in Extended

particularly telling. Although it can hardly be said to show WP:N (it only refers to a Quevedo paper ("Geometrothermodynamics of black holes") in a footnote without mentioning geometrothermodynamics or Quevedo by name, and then only to criticise the claim that Legendre transformations do not hold for black hole thermodynamics) it does show that the author thought the paper notable enough that he needed to respond to it. SpinningSpark 12:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well referenced to secondary academic sources. Definitely a notable topic that should stay here on Wiki. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient independent secondary sources to confirm. I must concede to not being able to understand most of their content, but nevertheless, looks more than justified in a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 6 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. Sandstein 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitals (website)[edit]

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

There's currently a dispute whether Vitals is a website or a company. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. There's next to no media coverage beyond a few passing mentions, often as one in a list of doctor review sites. There's nothing better on the "In the news" page on vitals.com, and the article's current sources are even worse. Huon (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This company has had more media attention than most. It was the subject of an NBC Nightly News segment and an NPR Planet Money podcast. https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/employers-offer-cash-incentives-to-encourage-healthcare-shopping-763391043752 http://snip.ly/HDwp?utm_source=StartUp+Health+Insider&utm_campaign=f055468f8c-StartUp_Health_Weekly_News_10-14-2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_250bac26a5-f055468f8c-312240461&mc_cid=f055468f8c&mc_eid=a7bea70577#http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/10/02/445371930/episode-655-pay-patients-save-money

More recently, the company has been mentioned as the partner of several large health plans, including BCBS Massachusetts, BCBS Louisiana and Highmark. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/payer-issues/bcbs-of-massachusetts-to-pay-members-up-to-250-per-procedure-when-they-shop.html http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/article_14225bc2-5c16-11e7-8b4f-b36bb8e56c52.html http://www.post-gazette.com/business/healthcare-business/2017/01/27/Highmark-insurance-opens-door-to-health-care-pricing/stories/201701240027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmariestollars (talk • contribs) 11:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NWEB nor WP:NCORP. Sourcing is passing mentions, routine funding news and / or WP:SPIP. Just a directory listing with no value to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 2 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. Sandstein 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Madison[edit]

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

No reliable third party references for notability . About half are her own writings or shows. The rest are Interviews with her, which do not count as reliable, for the subject can say whatever they please--they are only a PR technique. ., DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is the first time I participate in these discussions, I understand that I can leave my comment here.

You are right in reference 1, which is a production of Madison with which I support the claim that she has a daughter. But when I use the interviews as references, I only use the introduction to each interview, which is the word of the author, not the interviewee's - for example, references 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 -. They are reliable media and besides supporting the affirmations of the article, I understand that they serve to demonstrate that she has a wide media coverage.

Reference 5 is a third party that supports the claim that she interviewed Amanda Bynes.

References 6 and 7 are videos that support the claim that she interviewed Charlotte Mckinney.

Regarding reference 8, I moved it to the right place. But it is the same case of the interviews mentioned.

Reference 11 is a third party.

Reference 12 is an interview - by quotations - that I used to demonstrate her notability as a producer.

In summary: I have read that interviews are considered primary sources, but I understood that if I use what the author of the interview says, not her, they are useful, and even more if they are reliable media.

Sorry if there is any error in my assessments.--BelleBenny (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

almost always, the introductory section to an interview of this sort is based on a promotional bio submitted from the person being interviewed, orwritten or suggested by the PR agent who arranged fro the interview. It has no more reliability than the blurbs for books on Amazon, which are also written or at least organized by PR agents. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, about notability, I must understand that it is not enough that those media - which are known and trusted - have decided to interview or talk about Madison? It is true that most of them are interviews, but does not their existence show that the subject is notable? Should I understand that an interview is almost never an independent coverage? For example, does not an interview in People.com have the same value as an article in the same site?

About using the introductions to those interviews, I did it to assert objective facts: what companies did she create, or what programs did she produce. If it is not useful, which other source can I use to corroborate that Madison, for example, has produced a reality show with Kardashian??--BelleBenny (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with DGG on his assessment of the sourcing, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 22 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 08:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've added additional references and information to the article. This subject passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Her show Glam Masters (which she is the executive producer of) is a reality beauty competition show on Lifetime that she does with Kim Kardashian. Along with producing a beauty show, the article in the Insider literally has the title (referring to Diana Madison), "Kim Kardashian's makeup artists are so famous that people are fighting to join her glam squad" which I think is an indicator that Madison is extremely notable for her profession. Someone mentioned that interviews don't count to establish notability. There is nothing about interviews on WP:PERSON or WP:N, which are the official guidelines on notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument amounts to some combination of a/, that anyone associated with Kim Kardashan is notable c/the executive producer of a show on a famous person is inherently notable. c/headlines saying someone is famous mean that someone is famous--(I note that headlines are not written by the author or the article). d/hyperbolic statements in press releases are to be taken literally. ``

I feel that's a mischaracterization of my vote. My argument is that the subject passes WP:GNG due to significant discussion in secondary sources.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Lonehexagon (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources in the article and offered at this AfD are passing mentions and WP:SPIP, such as interviews, which are not suitable for determining notability. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO based on a review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, an article in People is useful, but an inteview in People is not useful? Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interviews I understand that they can not be discarded automatically. Do you suggest that all references are paid or part of an advertising campaign?

Sorry for my comments but I find it difficult to understand.BelleBenny (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjects fails WP:ENT, as the sources cited by the article are for the most part mentions in passing. Note that while Madison is an interviewer, she does not (per WP:NOTINHERITED) derive notability from famous persons she has interviewed.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clear that an interviewer does not inherit the notability of his interviewee, but in this case, In Touch Weekly and Daily Mail highlight both the interviewee and the interviewer.BelleBenny (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 3 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. Sandstein 09:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Punchd[edit]

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

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable app / company. Does not meet WP:NSOFT nor WP:NCORP. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine funding / acquisition news items and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Note: undeclared COI by article creator "Icco" as he used work at Punchd. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:20, 4 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. Sandstein 09:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Hourglass Festival[edit]

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

This festival which is described to have been postponed to the year 2108 and then to December 2018 perhaps falls under too soon and does not appear to fit under GNG. Caorongjin (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my efforts to improve this article did not uncover much independent coverage, and per WP:TOOSOON, it looks like it may not even happen at all. Attack Ramon (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Independent secondary reliable sources entirly cover the topic 1, 2, 3 so that the essay WP:TOOSOON is not true about the article. If it is soon to have this article, why are many relaible sources supported the festival currently?! Saff V. (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is inadequate, perhaps because it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 3 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. Sandstein 09:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MBO Partners[edit]

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

An article on a company, with acknowledged connected contributors and previous discussion about whether it should be brought to AfD. Research published by the company have been quoted in various articles about the "gig economy": Washington Post 2011, St Joseph News-Press 2014 – via HighBeam (subscription required) as well as the references provided in the article, but I don't think these meet the WP:CORPDEPTH substantial coverage requirement to demonstrate this to be more than a company going about its business. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or a platform for promotion. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; corporate 'cruft and barely a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 4 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. Sandstein 09:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khan (journalist)[edit]

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

Winner of National ICT Award is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JOURNALIST. 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) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As National ICT Award is being discussed, the outcome of that AFD might be influential here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Failes WP:GNG. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:31, 3 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Notary Association[edit]

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

fails notability guidelines Wolfson5 (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 19 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 07:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tentatively. Seems kind of technical, and useful as a reference (e.g. for the inbound links from a few biographical articles), and not promotional. To me it seems reasonable for this to be split out of the too-long Notary public article. Note there is a lot of coverage about notaries in Wikipedia, I am surprised to see articles split out for Notary public (Florida), etc. I agree that the amount of coverage included is marginal, but it would be okay to include in the Notary public article, and then we have no basis to disallow it being split out. Perhaps it could be expanded/renamed to cover all notary public associations, heading off creation of articles. --Doncram (talk) 00:36, 6 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. Sandstein 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NextShark[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 23 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 07:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP and in general corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 2 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. Sandstein 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Ditslear[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:NPOL. Prod removed with an explanation that coverage of his mayoral tenure in the Indianapolis Business Journal somehow creates a NPOL pass for a long term mayor of a midsize Indianapolis suburb. If after 14 years as a mayor, nothing more than local coverage of his tenure can be shown, he's not notable. None is shown, and I found none. John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I did not say it necessarily made it pass. I said it was possible he would meet the criteria. I haven't done outside searching at this point, but the fact that there was a profile in a state level paper indicates that there might be enough sourcing. Please assume good faith and do not be dismissive of other editors with your tone. matt91486 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of sources I've found that seem to go beyond trivial coverage at the Indianapolis Star: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. This should not be considered definitive, as it's just from one source, and it seems their website search goes back only until the beginning of 2015, so I will try to do some more substantial digging later. matt91486 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one said he didn't make GNG. That is not enough. He has to meet NPOL. That would certainly take more than anything from the Star. Either his political career must have garnered coverage in detail from outside Metro Indianapolis, or he makes GNG for another reason outside of politics. John from Idegon (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a misinterpretation, as GNG is the primary criteria for all notability. A mayor of a 5,000 person town could theoretically meet the GNG and be notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since every mayor of everywhere always gets local media coverage, every mayor of everywhere would always get to claim passage of GNG as an exemption from having to clear NPOL. So no, NPOL is not irrelevant just because a couple of local media sources happen to exist — for mayors of small towns and cities the GNG test is not "does some local media coverage of him exist?", because it never doesn't, but "do the volume, depth and/or geographic range of his sourceability demonstrate a reason why he would qualify as a special case?" Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG overrides NPOL. NPOL would assume notability in a lot of instances. What NPOL does is helps distinguish which coverage is significant versus coverage which is not significant, since any local politician will always have local news stories about the local politics they are involved in. The significant coverage test for local politicians, on the WP:NPOL page, is multiple feature articles in multiple sources, which doesn't appear to be the case for Mr. Ditslear, at least not on the sources shown. SportingFlyer talk 21:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A handful more sources about his elections/campaigns are here: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Again, I don't think any one of these is definitive necessarily, but they do supplement what is in the article (and I think at least is worthy of having a discussion in AfD rather than PROD, regardless of the outcome). I would agree with SportingFlyer, that only the IBS article in the existing article would fully qualify as a quote-unquote feature article about him, likely. matt91486 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being mayor of a suburb is not an automatic free pass over NPOL just because he exists, but the article is not referenced well enough to actually make him notable under WP:GNG. A couple of pieces of coverage in the local media is not enough to get a mayor over the bar in and of itself, because every mayor of everywhere could always show that — in a city this size, the sourceability and substance of the article has to add up to "this mayor is a special case over and above most small-city mayors", not just "this mayor exists", to get him over the bar. GNG is not automatically passed the moment the number of sources in an article exceeds two, and it is not necessarily passed by purely local coverage that's simply expected to exist for all mayors — so showing a few pieces of Indianapolis-based coverage is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable mayor. Going to have to see more sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage (Proquest archive search,) is limited to regional and WP:MILL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Official International Queen Fan Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to be a non-notable organization. The arguments from the 2008 AfD aren't convincing, being in the Guinness Book of World Records isn't a claim of notability. There are no references in the article that suggest GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. as it doesn't pass GNG. Cheers! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being around a long time doesn't establish notability (sorry, Granny). They've certainly had enough time to establish notability, but failed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:04, 9 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. The "keep" opinion doesn't cite any sources. Sandstein 09:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tatratea[edit]

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

Overly promotional article created by a WP:SPA with a probable undisclosed WP:COI (their original user name was Tatratea). Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independently published sources so it fails WP:CORP.Those sources which do exist in the article are largely primary, press-release-based or limited scope industry publications. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parent company Karloff Tatra Distillery is notable. Several articles about it see here. This is indeed their most widely consumed and known line of products. An article about the parent company would be preferable. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What are you? The significance is huge, the sources are available. What can we discuss here? Just leave the article. -Victoria III (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 04:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on what I can find there is no independent, in-depth coverage on the subject -- mostly promotional yarn or very brief mentions. Would be happy to stand corrected if somebody could show me in-depth foreign-lang sourcing. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:30, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAW Pressery[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Connected sources and news of fundraising info. No significant sources to indicate notability. fails WP:CORPDEPTH Mar11 (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep I've done a bit of expanding to the article and included some non PR RS. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are multiple articles explicitly and substantively about this company from The Economic Times, which is the world's second-most read business journal, exceeded only by the Wall Street Journal. It would be good if the article could include more news media coverage, and I think some of the corporate partnership stuff is a little crufty, though the rareness of the celebrity endorsement seems valid, but I'd say overall it meets WP:N. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - @MatthewVanitas: was wondering if Wikipedia:Canvassing applies here as the creator of the page contacted you here on your talk page regarding this AFD about a hour before you voted. Could you please reconsider your vote. Thank you FITINDIA 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it counts as canvassing; notifying the editor who approved it at AFC sounds reasonable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have removed the information about the fundraising by the company and its connected sources. Some of the other sources that have been used for citation include https://www.thehindubusinessline.com - A very independent and noteworthy newspaper website of the country, https://www.crunchbase.com/ - an independent, reliable website that tracks information about all companies using their own sources, http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in - an independent business Magazine's website, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com - (used in multiple citations)Economic Times is a section of the noteworthy and independent newspaper of the country The Times of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash1221 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Akash1221 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep: Checked a few more sources, the information seems legit on the brand and celeb endorsement. Citations like Economic times, businessline, also seem good enough. Can definitely work on improving the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksha.sharma (talk • contribs) 12:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Maniksha.sharma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the Keep !voters above have presented links to acceptable references and none of the references in the article itself meet the criteria. Specifically, the references are not intellectually independent (a key requirement of WP:ORGIND and rely on information/quotations/interviews provided by company sources. AfD is not a count of !votes. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: editors hsve mentioned specific sources used, particularly the Economic Times, so I think you're inaccurate in saying the Keep folks have made no argument, while you yourself have not stated *why* ET articles are not intellectually independent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewVanitas, some the responses above demonstrate a clear lack of awareness of the criteria for establishing notability which can be found at WP:NCORP. The argument is not whether the *source* meets the criteria as a reliable secondary source. The argument is whether the specific article in question is "intellectually independent". It is not possible to examine whether a specific article is intellectually independent and meets the other criteria for establishing notabilty if there is no link to a specific article. All that has occurred to date are editors saying that the Economic Times is a good source. I'm sure it is. But that's not the test. Of the ET references within the article, this one fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies exclusively on an interview with Rakyan complete with the usual format of history/aha moment/funding/future plans/glossy posed photos/ (we call this type of article churnalism) and regurgitates company-provided info/data with no independent analysis/opinion and is therefore not intellectually independent. This next ET reference is also not intellectually independent as it relies almost exclusively on quotations and information provided by the company or company officers with not independent analysis/opinion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The celebrity is a regular contributor to the Raw Pressery blog and participates in promotion and endorsement of the product. This next ET reference is another piece of churnalism - history/aha moment/posed photos/funding/future outlook/ and again relies almost exclusive on interiew/quotations from Rakyan and peppered with quotations from partners and one non-notable commentator. It is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. This final reference from ET is based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. None of the other references are intellectually independent either as is clear from an understanding of WP:NCORP and specifically WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and WP:NCORP. FITINDIA 17:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing above fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, lacks in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The article was created by a undisclosed paid editor, or someone with a conflict of interest in violation of ToU. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article was earlier created by Maniksha.sharma who voted as keep above under Raw pressery, which was deleted under A7. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails the strict requirements of WP:NCORP.Highking has explained it quite well.Anybody wishing for a source-specific rebuttal, feel free to ping me.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Highking.Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly clearly a WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:14, 7 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. A redirect can be created editorially. Sandstein 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Hammerl[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable independently from the band he managed. Should be redirected to Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung. The argument has been made that the de-Wiki is happy to have this stub, but I don't think that carries any water here - we require demonstrated separate notability for band members (see the italicized passage at the end of WP:BAND). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an Austrian who remembers the time when the EAV was popular: no. This is not a guy who used to be a figure of public life and merely wasn't talked about much by the kind of sources that Wikipedia relies on. This is a guy who nobody has ever heard of. de-Wiki is not in fact happy to have this stub; Mr Hammerl fails their notability criteria for band members with a vengeance and the page would be gone in a heartbeat if anyone cared to draw their attention to it. Kramler (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are Austrian, I take it you speak German? Why don't you alter the German Wikipedia people then and get the article deleted there? I've always said that the different language versions of Wikipedia are simply for thiose who speak those languages, no other diffence! Therefore if it allowed on the German version, it should be allowed here on the English version. Get it removed from the German version and the English deletion will make more sense! Also I am English and I wasn't born until after Mr Hammerl took his own life but I know he was there is the very early days before EAV became popular which was about five years later when they peaked at number 68 in the UK charts with "Ba Ba Bankrobbery". This does not mean he does not deserve an article. Mr Hammerl was clearly part of what the band is today and without him, things may well have been different. ˜˜˜˜

Reply. You are correct on both counts: I do speak German; Mr Hammerl had been dead for five years by the time the EAV became notable. Kramler (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If you don't feel this article is notable why don't you alert the German Wikipedia people to get it deleted there? Seems strange we have two German speakers involved in this discussion for this article to be removed but no-one is arguing against the German version of it, despite being fully able to do so! Please also see my comments below. Cexycy (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There does not appear to any evidence that he had done anything significant outside of EAV, and individual members of band without significance outside the band are normally redirected to the band per WP:MUSICBIO. However, if attempts at removing the redirect persist, then I'd suggest delete and salt. Hzh (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually experienced people get chosen as managers. Why would he be chosen as the EAV manager if he was inexperienced? The article should not be a redirected if there is an article which exists, otherwise what is the point of the article being there? That's just rude. What do you mean by salt anyway? ˜˜˜˜

...could you please just realize that decisions about whether an article is kept or not are made based on explicit, written Wikipedia guidelines, the most pertinent one of which has already been cited multiple times - WP:MUSICBIO (or WP:BAND - same target). Rudeness, or what goes on at deWP, doesn't enter into it. (I'm German too, btw) - Salting is a form of creation protection that prevents the article from being reinstated if there is concern that people will not abide by deletion consensus. Hopefully that won't be necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This debate has gone off the rails a bit with the unsigned comments (by User:Cexycy). It does not matter that Walter Hammerl has an article in German WP because notability there is not evidence of notability elsewhere. (In other words, our WP here has many articles on regionally notable American bands who have coverage in their city's media, but that does not automatically make them notable in Germany.) It also does not matter that he was a good or experienced manager. Alas, he has received little or no media coverage as an individual. If his work with Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung has been covered in reliable media sources, there is no problem discussing it in the group's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You just made a big mistake! There is no Germany Wikipedia, there is a German language version. Big difference! If a band is notable in the USA and they have an article, an article in German should be available for those wishing to read it. I know EAV have done poorly in English speaking countries and some would even say they are not notable there however people like myself may wish to read them. Therefore it really matters not where someone comes from, what they do or where they were best known, it has no bearing on the languages of the people wishing to read about them. Hence why there are articles in English about all sorts of people like EAV, who were not popular in English speaking countries. Wikipedia appears to be the ONLY source of English language information at the moment. I find it very strange how two German speakers are arguing against this article in the English section. If a subject does not deserve its own article, then why would it be available in one language but not another? By limiting languages you are limiting readers and this is simply NOT what Wikipedia is about. It's about information for all! Cexycy (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Personally I disagree with your distinction between a Germany Wikipedia and a German Language Wikipedia, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that we still have no confirmation of Hammerl's notability as an individual person who qualifies for his own Wikipedia article, in any language. Your concerns about what is available in what language is actually a larger issue for the structure of Wikimedia Foundation at the international level and has little bearing on this particular article under discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response - As stated before how can someone or something be notable in one language but not another? Therefore why should it exist in one language bit not another? It just doesn't make sense! I also find it a little worrying that you cannot see my point of a difference between Germany and German language Wikipedia. There is a mountain of difference. If we take your approach, it could be argued that EAV related articles should be removed from the English Wikipedia as they are not notable in English speaking countries (as well as countless other non-English notable musicians). As stated before Wikipedia is about providing information to people who want it, whatever language they speak! Cexycy (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you knock it off - incredulity does not good arguments make. Have a look at the deWP criteria for band members: [27] - they say the same thing, in fact with more detail (second group of three bullets). As has been pointed out above, dude fails our notability criteria as well as theirs. Apparently no one has gotten round to enforce it over there, but that doesn't mean we have to follow suit. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I will, but I still think it's strange we have at least two German speakers arguing here and not on the German section! I bet EAV have had one or two documentaries made about them, which would have to mention a few things about Mr Hammerl too, which these people may well have seen. Cexycy (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Okay, it looks like merging the two articles would be the best idea. This way what little information known can still be read and no-one misses out. Can't say fairer than that, can we? Cexycy (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerl's article says he was the band's manager and "occasional" vocalist starting in 1977, but the band's article says that he was actually a member starting in 1978 and does not describe him as being the manager (except briefly in the Line-ups list). Which is correct? Straighten this out at the band's article then the merge can be considered complete because it is the only factual statement to be merged. Then Hammerl's article can be redirected to the band's article or just plain deleted (contingent upon the votes above). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:58, 8 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. Sandstein 09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Cross[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No notable contributions to the genre. Award categories of "Best Male Newcomer" etc. are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 7 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Forsberg[edit]

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

Short circuited prod that still does not answer the underlying problem: Prod reason was Unreferenced Bigraphy of "Known for Painter". Does not appear to pass WP:NARTIST, and without references, we cannot prove SNG or GNG. An editor added a single reference to a Swedish museum listing the museum's holdings for the artist. The editor is also the same one that promoted the content out of AFC/Draft space without a single reference. Pinging Editors who have previously worked with this page (Legacypac—Calliopejen1—Etothepi—Lee Vilenski) Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting editor also argues other wikipedias indicate that Nils Forsberg has an entry in this encyclopedia which is even more problematic as we never import annother wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this just indicates that other editors have vouched that an entry on this artist appears in Bra Böckers Lexikon, a print encyclopedia. I don't have a copy of the print encyclopedia and therefore cannot personally verify that fact. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, where's the sources and notability proven in order for English Wikipedia to make an independent judgement? Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made an independent judgment based on the number of encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries in which this artist has entries, as well as the fact that 25 of his works are held by their national museum. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see the further reading now included at the bottom of the article (all viable references that come from the other Wikipedias that you sneer at). He has been included in many other encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries and deserves an entry here. Next time try WP:BEFORE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What a fine concept, and how did you apply the ruberic for mainspace suitability BEFORE you promoted it to mainspace? Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I looked at the other articles and determined this was a notable topic, and therefore applied the ((Promising draft)) tag. User:Legacypac removed the promising draft tag, putting the draft at risk of deletion again, so therefore I confirmed the topic was notable and moved it to mainspace. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you admit disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Glad to see that you are such a fine upstanding wikipedian. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is not what I admitted. I saw a promising draft of a notable subject at risk of deletion, so I moved it to mainspace. This is also after I had been repeatedly asked why I didn't just move articles to mainspace instead of applying the promising draft tag. In any event, this discussion is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. Do you disagree that this artist is notable? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        ...removed the promising draft tag, putting the draft at risk of deletion again, so therefore I confirmed the topic was notable and moved it to mainspace That's the quintesential definition of a Point violation. If you wanted to save the page, all it took was a single edit before the 6 month timer fell out, but you chose the disruptive and expedient route. Hasteur (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know what more to say other than I disagree strenuously. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        FWIW, I just added nine sources, which were fairly easy to find. This means Calliopejen1's assessment was entirely correct, and also that WP:BEFORE would have found the same easy basis for notability.104.163.150.200 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a pattern of abuse of AfCH tools by an editor who appears to be trying to make a WP:POINT. It's fine to have a Draft you intend to work on but throwing unsourced drafts into mainspace without any references is not the way to do things. Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD has nothing to do with whether you like how I am using AfCH tools. Please comment on the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sending a draft to mainspace with no sources knowing it would be AfD'd is problematic behavior. You first interacted with the draft in August 2017 but you only started to add sources when it was rightly taken to AfD and you were threatened with sanctions for moving multiple unsourced drafts to mainspace. Stop doing things backward. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I did not believe that this would be AFD'd. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find several news sources (in Swedish) that I want to add, but I unfortunately don't speak Swedish. I agree with Hasteur that notability guidelines for other Wikis should never be imported to en Wiki, however. Nanophosis (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Add the sources and if we can understand them, it might be enough to prove notability, however as I indicated above absent prose backed up by RS that demonstrates clearing the SNG and GNG this page should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I want to add the sources, but I'm afraid the language barrier will prevent me from accurately summarizing the information. I'll drop a few links here in the hope that an editor who speaks Swedish will be able to use them. [28],[29],[30] (behind paywall). P.S. - Expressen has quite a few articles about the artist that come up when searching for news with his name, but I didn't include any of these articles in the links due to the tabloid nature of the source. Nanophosis (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has an attempt at a reference now, but it doesn't actually prove anything because link rot. Until a verfiable source has been provided, we should not have this article. •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 19:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Etothepi: Which link is not working for you? There is also an extensive further reading section at the bottom, with multiple links that work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Etothepi: Please have a look at the article again, as nine sources have been added.104.163.150.200 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1: The nationalmuseum.se link in the refs section does not work. I'll reserve judgement on the other links until someone more experienced and with better Swedish checks them out. •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 19:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Etothepi: That link is now fixed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Etothepi: Just a database listing of the museum's holdings of the artist. Using our critical thinking skills, a Swedish "nationalmuseum" having a collection of art by a Sweedish artist seems like a "business as usual" holding rather than a "we need to get this artist's works because he's notable". Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a press release the museum put out when the recently acquired an additional painting by this artist. [31] Clearly this artist's works are not ending up in the Nationalmuseum by chance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nationalmuseum is equivalent to the National Gallery of Art in the United States. National galleries do not generally hold 25 works by an artist unless that artist is worthy of note. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1: Be that as it may, WP:NARTIST does also specify "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Does he have work held somewhere other than the Nationalmuseum? •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gothenburg Museum of Art at a minimum (see reference in article). I will look for others. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The collection of the Gothenburg Museum of Art includes primarily Western art from the 15th century until today, with an emphasis on Nordic artMuseum's About page Sorry, but focusing on Nordic art isn't really inspiring confidence in Notability, it suggests an indiscriminate collecting of Nordic art. Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?????? This is a totally crazy way to assess the importance of a museum. A museum focusing on Nordic art can't indicate the significance of a Nordic artist? Then can a museum focusing on contemporary art indicate the significance of a contemporary artist? An impressionist museum, an impressionist artist? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A nation/region museum that announces they focus on that nation/region's art suggests a "national" focus and supporting the country's artists. Contemporary art and Impressionist art is a generally accepted category for which there are many museums in many nations/regions. Your equivalence argument is disappointing. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what's disappointing is an AFD nomination that missed the voluminous sources and indications of notability that are now being added to the article.104.163.150.200 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of this article has entries in the following encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries: Bra böckers lexikon, Vem är det, Nordisk familjebok, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, Benezit Dictionary of Artists. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's analyze those "contributions" to the article:

Bra böckers lexikon: a Swedish encyclopedia. So a single entry in a encyclopedia of at least 30 thousand entries

Vem är det: a sweedish biographical dictionary. Again, a single entry in at least 30 thousand entries

Nordisk familjebok: A nordic family book (encyclopedia). Same issue as illustrated above.

Svenskt biografiskt lexikon: Sweedish biographical dictionary. Again directory listing.

Benezit Dictionary of Artists: an extensive publication of bibliographical information. Also with the directory listing. Can you see why I'm having a problem accepting this? Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." per WP:ANYBIO. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing other language wikipedias is worse than referencing English wikipedias. Other language wikipedias have different standards. I just found out Calliopejeni is an Admin - which makes their POINTy behavior doublely problematic. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:Artist & WP:Anybio. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. That this artist's works are in the Swedish national museum and the Gothenburg Museum is a clear indication that they will pass WP:NARTIST. In its current state the article is adequately sourced and Calliopejen1's comments above point to many more sources available. This isn't a poll on Calliopejen1's approach to AfC reviewing. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why don't people just look for sources rather than argue? I added eight good sources in ten minutes. He's clearly WP:N notable based on sources, and the Paris Salon medal. Having his work in two museums satisfies WP:ARTIST.104.163.150.200 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His biography is in Grove Art Online, which should settle the matter; they're pretty selective. And as Joe mentions, he has works in the collection of Sweden's Nationalmuseum. I'm finding fewer substantial sources than one would expect, but there are many passing references in reliable sources, e.g., Jonsson,Visual paraphrases: Studies in Mass Media Imagery, Vol 1, pp. 20-21; Sharp, Progress of Art in the Century, p 291; Brauer, Rivals and Conspirators, p. 92; Jonson, Nathan Soderblom: Called to Serve, pp. 76-77; The Swedish-American Historical Quarterly, Volume 50, p. 229. Ewulp (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the third and fourth ref to the article. Thanks!104.163.150.200 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable artist and the sources used reflect that. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources suggest meets WP:ARTIST - KylieTastic (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Even before IP 104 helpfully added nine sources, my !vote still would have been "Keep". First: Notability is a property of a topic, not of an article, so presence/absence of sources is irrelevant for notability concerns, and this topic is clearly notable, regardless of what kind of state the article was in. Second: verifiability does not require the inclusion of sources in an article; it merely requires that it is possible to find them. The article was verifiable before any sources were found, it just didn't have any at that point. Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep—and move to close. The effect of this nomination has been the improvement of the article to a level that could not support deletion. As noted above, the notability of the subject did not depend on the immediate inclusion of sources, just the existence of them. The fact that other Wikipedias contain sourced articles on this subject lends credence to the fact that we would be able to locate and use those sources here as well, which is a totally different topic than directly using the articles hosted on other Wikipedias as sources. AfD is a discussion of the merits of the article subject, and not the actions of any one editor, but if it were, then the actions of the editor who promoted this from a draft weren't improper. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subjects work is included in the collection of a notable museum with supranational scope and several reference works or tertiary sources. Vexations (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list above doesn't mention his entry in the ULAN - Union List of Artist Names, normally accepted as pretty strong evidence of notability (as is Benezit). A bio in Grove is completely conclusive. Plus the national museum works etc. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even at the outset but especially now this seems obviously to be an individual suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - One of the best known Swedish painters of the late 19th century. /FredrikT (talk) 00:29, 3 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. Sandstein 09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Susbielle[edit]

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

Fully unsourced bio of a French author. No assertion of notability for his books or his life. Most contents were added by an IP SPA in 2008. — JFG ^talk 19:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. There isn't much to find about him or his books either. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 19:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can the broadcast interviews mention at External links be considered reliable sources? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 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. Sandstein 09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tianbao Time Plaza[edit]

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

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

This page was just accepted via AfC even though it has but a single source of unknown quality in Chinese. I was unable to find any English language sources to confirm the building even exists - which makes demonstrating the building is notable pretty tough. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no requirements that an article on the English Wikipedia requires English sources. I agree that the article would greatly benefit from more sources, that's why I didn't move the article into the main space myself yet.Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find reliable sources in English or Chinese. ~~Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTALBALL.~~ Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck "Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTALBALL", as it looks like it has been verified and it was completed in 2015. I'm leaving my !vote as Delete as there is still only one independent, working ref and a short one at that, not really enough for an encyclopedic, NPOV article to be written. That said, significant Chinese skyscrapers are, to me, a suitable subject for the project and I would be happy to change my !vote if two or three more substantial sources were added which contribute more to the page (sources which could address questions like who designed it, who financed it, who are the main tenants, who built it, what it replaced, and so on). Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The single source itself is reliable (although Sohu is questionable in general, being an advertisement company), but I wasn't able to find any others in English OR Chinese, and I have trouble justifying an article of this nature that has only 1 source. Weak delete and remake if more reliable sources publish news about the building. Nanophosis (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability, and I don't understand what makes "this" building as worthy of special notice. Obviously English prose and sources would greatly help us understand what makes this building special, but absent that we have to default to delete. No opposition to Drafting, but prohibit this from being immunized against G13. Either the page will improve or it can be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On first blush a 45 story building might he notable but when I could not establish it was notable or even exists I took off the "promising draft" template, an action which gave it another 6 months to find sources. That triggered another editor to promote the page to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, an action which starts a six-month clock after which it will be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no one else edits it, possibly. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Could not find any more reliable sources. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep the sources in the article probably do not meet GNG requirements (including the sohu one which has a desclaimer saying the article is self-published), but the subject apparently has some leading tech in construction safety that attracted a provincial work safety supervision bureau-lead study [32]. --Skyfiler (talk) 16:06, 9 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. Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, Big World! Big Adventures! The Movie[edit]

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

Prior prod removed with one source from a year ago stating the film was planned. Very little of the info in the article is in the source -- much of it is likely guesswork based on the TV series.

Per WP:NFF, future animated films are not notable unless "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." No such sources provided or found. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:51, 26 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 17:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Variety source clearly describes a TV movie, which is a lot different from a theatrical release. Otherwise, the source is an WP:ADVERT besides that (clearly a part of Variety's advertorial department rather than their news side), and we need more than a bunch of Thomas blogs and IMDb to call this well-sourced. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 4 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Smerkis[edit]

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

A non-notable crypto-currency promoter. Refs are promotional or "contributed content" like an interview at HuffPo. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious gaming of ACPERM to post what appears to be undisclosed native advertising. Creator notified of WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 18:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indications of significance, and a clear WP:SIGCOV failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 22:03, 7 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 Deleted as created by a sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maile66 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

138 water[edit]

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

A couple of press releases and brief mention in the Daily Mail and a blog post that makes fun of the product are hardly the kind of sources that can sustain an article about a product with very dubious health claims. There is no medical evidence for any health benefits of Alkaline water. Vexations (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:VANISPAM ur example for sure. It's bottled water with a fancy gimmick and nothing to back it up besides that. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*PAGE DELETED, created by a sock. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 9 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susheel Kumar Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:PROF, fails WP:ANYBIO. DanielQ8 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-bio. A student with a YouTube channel. Photo uploaded as "own work" appears to be a timed selfie. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Glen WP:SNOWBALL is needed. DanielQ8 (talk) 17:25, 2 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. Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallon Davis[edit]

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

This seems to be an exemplary case of "inherited notability". As far as I can see, hardly any one of the many sources is predominantly (or in some cases, even in passing) concerned with the person - only with projects she worked on. The few directly applicable sources are promo stublets like this one. Significantly, the "Early Life" section, which has biographical details not connected to work output, is unsourced. Appears to fail WP:NBIO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are many unsourced claims in this WP:BLP, especially about her early life. It appears to be an autobiography, or written by someone with a conflict of interest: note WP:Changing_username/Simple/Archive226#Fallon Davis → Ron Collins. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Pretty clearly changed the name just in time to publish that article without ringing immediate alarm bells... :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and, thanks to new information, per WP:AUTOBIO (specifically WP:OR/WP:V). <RetroCraft314 talk/> 19:35, 2 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 redirect to Tarek Omar Souryal as a duplicate article. ansh 666 17:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T.O. Souryal[edit]

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

Dr. Souryal has two pages on Wikipedia. Recommend to delete T.O. Souryal page and keep Tarek Omar Souryal page since it has more content. Lhts120 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close simply Redirect one page at the other as the T.O. name is a valid way to search evidently. Legacypac (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 3 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. Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Brooks-Bilson[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability threshold. Hokie RNB 21:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cold fusion is clearly a fringe idea, so we need good sources connecting to this subject which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the "ColdFusion" referenced in this bio is the web application development platform, not the hypothetical nuclear reaction. Hokie RNB 02:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hokie is correct that this is about a person involved in software, not a fringe scientific theory. There isn't enough non-promotional material here for an article; writing one O'Reilly book doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and it doesn't appear WP:GNG is met either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use participation from a few more editors who have read the article more carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:10, 2 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. Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yaseen[edit]

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

Business profile, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless passes GNG. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance. --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 3 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Van Buskirk[edit]

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

A completely unsourced mayoral article. Fails WP:NPOL #2 and WP:GNG. Importantly, my WP:BEFORE search wasn't in an attempt to nominate the article for AfD but rather to find sources on the article - but one non-reliable source excepted, I couldn't find anything on him whatsoever. I did look through a number of genealogy articles and gravestone articles in an attempt to get something - but it appears this article also fails WP:V. SportingFlyer talk 21:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a mayor of a city does not give default notability, and we lack sources showing notability otherwise. Wikipedia is not a place to post the geneological information on your ancestors, which is about the only way I could understand such extreme detail on his immediate family in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mayors of small towns don't normally qualify for inclusion without lots of supporting references. Deb (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am working on the article and it seems possible that he has sufficient notability based upon his multi-faceted role in the city of Bloomington. I'll make a vote if I find enough material to establish notability.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it was an article about a living person, I would vote to delete, but this is a historical figure that makes it harder to find sources. I did find content and sources to add the article, and it seems that he was notable within the city for several governmental and other executive roles in the city - as well as a grand king of the Masons. By the way, Bloomington is not a small town. It's the seventh largest city in Indiana.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you very much for adding the sources - this satisfies my WP:V concerns as I had difficulty with my before search (and will start looking at newspapers.com for historical mayors.) However, I'm not going to withdraw the nomination: I still don't think the sourcing is enough for WP:GNG, as the marriage sources are not in-depth and WP:MILL, and the mason sources are substantial but also what you'd expect from the organization - nothing that would make him stand out. I'd like to leave it open to see how others vote. Keep in mind in 1900 Bloomington was only the 34th largest town in Indiana - smaller than Elwood, Brazil and Alexandria - and he was the mayor between 1891-1897, which is one of the problems with our "large enough city" mayoral assumption. SportingFlyer talk 20:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment / Question - SportingFlyer He seems more notable than other Bloomington mayors before him. I cleaned up another article, but will stop right now. Does that mean that all the articles for the mayors for Bloomington should be deleted? (I have no stake in the game, I just started cleaning up articles a particular user worked on and happened upon this article in the process.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - CaroleHenson I don't think it implies all Bloomington mayors should be deleted, but they probably should be judged on WP:GNG. Being the mayor of Bloomington doesn't get you a WP:NPOL pass, at least in my opinion. I flagged it since I've been going through mayor stubs and tagging ones that don't pass WP:GNG - Mr. Van Buskirk had no sources, and I had difficulty finding any so nominated it instead of improving it. SportingFlyer talk 01:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after cleanup, this satisfies WP:CCPOL (V/NOR/NPOV) and has suitable references. The subject seems to me to be encyclopedic. Bloomington is not quite a typical small town, as being home to a flagship university means it punches above its weight. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloomington IN is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over NPOL #2 just because they exist, the fact that Bloomington is home to a university is not in and of itself to make its mayors special if they weren't personally and sourceably involved in the university's creation, and simply being able to add just enough sourcing to hand the article a technical pass of VNPOVNOR — a thing which almost anybody who exists could instantly do the moment they've gotten their name into the local newspaper once or twice for doing nothing that would actually satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion — is not in and of itself an exemption from having to actually WP:GNG the person well enough to get them over the defined notability criterion for their field of endeavour. But this is not sourced well enough to satisfy NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, being mayor of Bloomington and Treasurer at IU are more than enough to show that the individual is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia in my opinion. This individual more than meets N. I do not see a particularly great case for NPOL#2 - that is a fairly poorly defined criteria and I don't tend to think of individuals in that way. Perhaps he has a week case for meeting NPOL #1, as IU treasurer is a state level elected position, although it was an election made by the board of directors which consisted of 5-10 people. I would not make that case, as I read SNGs as sufficient but not necessary. I understand I am repeating myself, I just wanted to make it clear that I do read your !vote and disagree somewhat. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being treasurer of a university is not a political role, so NPOL is irrelevant to whether it constitutes a notability claim or not. It's also not a role that guarantees an automatic inclusion freebie to every treasurer of every university regardless of their depth of sourceability or lack thereof — it might count for something if the article were sourced much better than this, but it's not such an "inherently" notable role that you would be exempted from actually having to source him over WP:GNG on career coverage, and could instead to rely on a mix of primary sources and routine marriage and death notices as the entire sourcing pool because the "inherence" of the notability claim somehow trumped the low quality of the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources provided by Carole Henson. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would the editors who weighed in prior to the article’s overhaul (User:Johnpacklambert, User:Deb) care to weigh in again?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG and is interesting for a historical mayor. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any need to change my earlier vote, but certainly the article has been enormously improved and I will accept that a defensible case has been made for notability. Deb (talk) 08:10, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightenment in Western secular tradition[edit]

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

An unsourced, abandoned WP:CFORK of Age of Enlightenment and related existing articles. Redundant. Sandstein 12:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and merge any information that might be useful to Age of Enlightenment. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 19:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this after nominating another article created by the same editor, who was later banned for his repeated creation of unsourced articles reflecting his personal viewpoints. This seems to be another example of the same. --RL0919 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have Age of Enlightenment (which already mentions Dialectic of Enlightenment and "Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?"). XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 4 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. Sandstein 09:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcakke[edit]

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

This article has existed in two separate locations, one at CupcakKe and one at Cupcakke. The original title was the former, but that article was deleted in 2016 following the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CupcakKe. This newer article seems to have been built specifically to circumvent the original afd, and I was initially unaware of the former article until I an editor left a message asking for the capital letter variant article - which was deleted and salted due to multiple repeated attempts to recreate the article at or near its original configuration- arose. Before I do any recreating and any redirecting, though, I want this issue resettled. Do we really need an article for the artist, and if so, where is it going to be at. If not, do we delete and salt both page variants, or just delete and hope for the best. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Where is the deletion criteria? There is none in your explanation whatsoever, you just talk about the previous article that got deleted. 344917661X (Talk) 11:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I entertained G4 for a few days, but that doesn't strictly apply. I still have notability/significance concerns, and given the large number of what look to be fan accounts or burner accounts I wonder if there may be a sock farm here to for involved in constantly recreating the article. Insofar as it applies here, I have concerns about her notability under most of the music criteria - I'm not seeing 1,2, or 3 placed records, nor golden albums, nor chart performances or awards, and while there are a number of cites some of those are questionable by Wikipedia standards (twitter and Instagram, for example, wouldn't be what I'd consider independent, 3rd party sources and yet I see no less than 3 mentions of those sites in the reference section). It is my opinion that the article should be relisted here for input on where exactly it stands, and if you look at close enough you can see the cracks I'm talking about. Now whether those cracks make it deletable or whether they are SOFIXIT cracks is what we are here to decide. (Also, I concede I forgot to include a valid deletion criteria, thanks for pointing that out. Its been a long-ish day, so I'm hoping a little sleep will get me back on track.) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for understanding and explaining why the article should be deleted. Now let's see how this AFD turns out. 344917661X (Talk) 13:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I nommed her article for AfD the first time around. At the time she didn't (in my estimation) meet our KEEP criteria. I think she's received significant coverage since then.[33][34][35][36]. And while the article may have been created at Cupcakke to circumvent the salting at CupcakKe, it probably should have been created at Cupcakke anyway, since we're not beholden to cute stylization. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyphoidbomb. The primary reason for the deletion of older articles about Cupcakke was WP:TOOSOON, but I think the article is different enough and there are enough sources released since then to establish notability. Nanophosis (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, there were some shenanigans with first AFD in trying to circumvent the deletion, but per subsequent coverage in significant, reliable sources (Rollings Stone, Vulture, etc.) the subject does meet notability criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This rapper/singer is notable. Still a good catch by the nominator. In these cases a redirect can suffice but this definitely needed some work! Thank you, TomStar81, for being on top of this! gidonb (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO and the general notability guide, as demonstrated by Cyphoidbomb. — sparklism ^hey! 07:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the public bathroom portrait, this biography describes a notable rapper. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - everyone else above has already explained why the rapper has become notable since the first AfD. I will add that if this version of the article was an attempt to get around the first AfD, perhaps by someone who was unaware of the proper procedures, then the article might have to be moved so the title includes whatever upper-case K's she is using. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very much notable at this point. — 🦊 02:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having your song named one of the best of a given year in its category by Rolling Stone is a pretty good indication of notability, I'd say. Satisfies WP:BAND. EnPassant (talk) 14:49, 7 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Sebastián Monesterolo[edit]

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

No evidence that the player meets GNG. Whilst this RSSSF link appears to indicate he played/scored in the Malaysia Super League for MPPJ (although note the different spelling of his name), it is not considered this confers sufficient notability to justify a stand-alone article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Eldumpo (talk) 08:48, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL, which is enough. R96Skinner (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question @R96Skinner:, for which league are you passing him? I can only see that he has played in semi-pro leagues. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Malaysian Super League, as Eldumpo mentioned - it's listed at WP:FPL. It's mentioned in the article itself, though the reference seems to be broken. Eldumpo shows RSSSF to confirm his Super League apps, while BDFA also does. R96Skinner (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes WP:NFOOTBALL based on above mentioned [37], which shows he played in first-tier league. Because honestly, it is quit difficult to find statistics of players from South East Asia region in the internet, especially pre 2010. I experience it myself how difficult to find statistic for Indonesian player, meanwhile that player plays almost in every match. So I think this prove should be okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fathul.mahdariza (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i forgot to sign before --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL per findings. I didn't see any evidence last time, but what wasn't on the page article and should be has been pointed out in the externals links here in the AfD. Govvy (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article about journeyman footballer who appears to have made a handful of appearances that may satisfy NFOOTBALL: league matches for Malaysian Super League side and cup matches for Liga Leumit (during fully-pro era) side. Appears to be subject of some non-routine coverage in Argentine press, but ideally needs work to bring into GNG compliance. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 4 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. Sandstein 09:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZaiGeZaiGu Community[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Not a notable organization. Running a single Chinese New Year Gala doesn't make the group notable, and the coverage appears to be WP:MILL coverage of that event, not the group running it. (also note discussion of notability on Talk:ZaiGeZaiGu Community below) power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments made at the Talk Page for easy references - that was in response to nominator PROD which I seconded it
Hi, @Power~enwiki let's discuss the deletion proposal here. The challenge on WP:N was raised by The Mighty Glen before, and after I added independent media coverage sources in Chinese, it's believed it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria and the notability challenge was resolved. ~~The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:~~ significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. I'd also like to high-light the understanding of it's a group that only runs one event, was a misunderstanding. In fact it was known for running community events over the course of several years, and has reach to certain height of recognition as a volunteer group. Let me know if you have any other questions ~~Xinbenlv (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply] Zero WP:RS that cover in depth, one event. Support the PROD. I'm watching these a few days thinking whether to CSD / AFD it. --Quek157 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Are there any references that discuss this group outside the context of their 2018 event? As the group was founded in 2016, I expect it is WP:TOOSOON for there to be sufficient coverage of the group to meet notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it toosoon, it just a midly promotional one, I read through all are just ticketing or promotional websites that should really do a G11. But I know can't. --Quek157 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] ~~: As an example to defend the accusation of "Zero coverage in depth" and "it only covers 2018". Xinbenlv (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)</>~~ [reply] Here is a media coverage by USChinaPress.com that mentioned the group starts in 2015, and was expanded in 2017 in the local language. WP:ROTM coverage --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] * Here is another media coverage by soho.com about its singing contest in June, 2017. we don't accept advertisement as a RS --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] It's a independent secondary coverage, not an advertisement. May I humbly challenge that the way you attack these coverages as not good source, are all very subjective views, unsupported and quite biased. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Here is a broadcast by BeiMeiKaoPuQingNian podcast station interviewing leader of the community member about how it organize the volunteers and reach to this level. neither an interview which only duty is to promote the group --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for quick response. That's a mis-perception the interview is about promoting the group. It does give credit but it's a legitimate neutral media coverage trying to learn about the group (and this was also to address the WP:ROTM because it was not directly related only one regular event it does. In addition, there is also a TV interview by KTSF as listed in the reference too. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Here are just a few examples, and some of them already are in the reference list. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy to further resolve your doubt. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I don't wish to continue anymore, if you want, delete the PROD, if not keep it and let an admin judge, this is really an AFD where PROD should be for uncontroversial deletions, if there is so much contentions, I rather put it to the community. So what is your decision, still contesting? Then I will remove the PROD and sent this to AFD, if not, enough arguments are there that it was one event, WP:ROTM, no sense of WP:RS supporting WP:N / WP:GNG (exact words for AFD nomination). To add, I had read clearly all the sources in depth. And I am no friend of deletion. I had argued strongly for inclusion in all, seeking WP:ATD as far as possible. Baseless accusation of me being biased. I am one of the most objective when coming into deletion arguments and will try my very best to argue until fail. Attacking sources? Nope. I'm analyzing them. I am doing AFD discussion since 2007 anyway.--Quek157 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I think I heard what you said Quek157. I didn't question your good-faith. I was just challenging the way you attack my evidence's legitimacy. I didn't intent to contest the PROD here. I was soliciting suggestions for clarification needed. I think we should let the PROD run for a while to collect more input before removing the PROD from different people. For example, I'd like to wait for power~enwiki for what he/she thinks about my evidences provided here. And if it turns out it has to go to AofD, I'd like to learn more to prepare a better defensive argument too. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] An archived version of a Facebook post is not going to be the least bit useful. As far as your other points, as I assume you want to discuss them, I'll convert to an AfD and they can be discussed there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] (ec):::I think you are mistaken, anyone can remove the PROD tag, it can be removed by you or me. A full discussion is only to take place at AFD. What we are doing now is exactly what we will do at AFD, analyse things and etc. This is no different to AFD in my view. Feel free to contest the PROD. I don't see the point of preparing a defensive arguments. We don't WP:OWN articles, there is nothing to defend for, there is only WP:N and WP:NOT to take into concern. To power~enwiki, if you wish to recline the PROD, I have no issues. I will just mark this for AFD and then see how the communtiy thinks, with better sources, I am then willing to withdrawl my nomination per consensus. Or you can just nominate, no worries. That's all from me. --Quek157 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments made at the Talk Page for easy references - that was in response to nominator PROD which I seconded it

Hi, @Power~enwiki let's discuss the deletion proposal here. The challenge on WP:N was raised by The Mighty Glen before, and after I added independent media coverage sources in Chinese, it's believed it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria and the notability challenge was resolved.

~~The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:~~

significant coverage in

multiple,

independent,

reliable,

secondary sources.

I'd also like to high-light the understanding of it's a group that only runs one event, was a misunderstanding. In fact it was known for running community events over the course of several years, and has reach to certain height of recognition as a volunteer group.
Let me know if you have any other questions

~~Xinbenlv (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Zero WP:RS that cover in depth, one event. Support the PROD. I'm watching these a few days thinking whether to CSD / AFD it. --Quek157 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any references that discuss this group outside the context of their 2018 event? As the group was founded in 2016, I expect it is WP:TOOSOON for there to be sufficient coverage of the group to meet notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it toosoon, it just a midly promotional one, I read through all are just ticketing or promotional websites that should really do a G11. But I know can't. --Quek157 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~: As an example to defend the accusation of "Zero coverage in depth" and "it only covers 2018". Xinbenlv (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)</>~~ [reply]

Here is a media coverage by USChinaPress.com that mentioned the group starts in 2015, and was expanded in 2017 in the local language.

WP:ROTM coverage --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Here is another media coverage by soho.com about its singing contest in June, 2017.

we don't accept advertisement as a RS --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a independent secondary coverage, not an advertisement. May I humbly challenge that the way you attack these coverages as not good source, are all very subjective views, unsupported and quite biased. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a broadcast by BeiMeiKaoPuQingNian podcast station interviewing leader of the community member about how it organize the volunteers and reach to this level.

neither an interview which only duty is to promote the group --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick response. That's a mis-perception the interview is about promoting the group. It does give credit but it's a legitimate neutral media coverage trying to learn about the group (and this was also to address the WP:ROTM because it was not directly related only one regular event it does. In addition, there is also a TV interview by KTSF as listed in the reference too. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just a few examples, and some of them already are in the reference list. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy to further resolve your doubt. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to continue anymore, if you want, delete the PROD, if not keep it and let an admin judge, this is really an AFD where PROD should be for uncontroversial deletions, if there is so much contentions, I rather put it to the community. So what is your decision, still contesting? Then I will remove the PROD and sent this to AFD, if not, enough arguments are there that it was one event, WP:ROTM, no sense of WP:RS supporting WP:N / WP:GNG (exact words for AFD nomination). To add, I had read clearly all the sources in depth. And I am no friend of deletion. I had argued strongly for inclusion in all, seeking WP:ATD as far as possible. Baseless accusation of me being biased. I am one of the most objective when coming into deletion arguments and will try my very best to argue until fail. Attacking sources? Nope. I'm analyzing them. I am doing AFD discussion since 2007 anyway.--Quek157 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I heard what you said Quek157. I didn't question your good-faith. I was just challenging the way you attack my evidence's legitimacy. I didn't intent to contest the PROD here. I was soliciting suggestions for clarification needed. I think we should let the PROD run for a while to collect more input before removing the PROD from different people. For example, I'd like to wait for power~enwiki for what he/she thinks about my evidences provided here. And if it turns out it has to go to AofD, I'd like to learn more to prepare a better defensive argument too. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An archived version of a Facebook post is not going to be the least bit useful. As far as your other points, as I assume you want to discuss them, I'll convert to an AfD and they can be discussed there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):::I think you are mistaken, anyone can remove the PROD tag, it can be removed by you or me. A full discussion is only to take place at AFD. What we are doing now is exactly what we will do at AFD, analyse things and etc. This is no different to AFD in my view. Feel free to contest the PROD. I don't see the point of preparing a defensive arguments. We don't WP:OWN articles, there is nothing to defend for, there is only WP:N and WP:NOT to take into concern. To power~enwiki, if you wish to recline the PROD, I have no issues. I will just mark this for AFD and then see how the communtiy thinks, with better sources, I am then willing to withdrawl my nomination per consensus. Or you can just nominate, no worries. That's all from me. --Quek157 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per enough arguments are there that it was one event, WP:ROTM, no sense of WP:RS supporting WP:N / WP:GNG and all the rest stated in the condensed version above. --Quek157 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding, a WP:BEFORE only have a LINKEDIN profile (will not put it here for privacy). --Quek157 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - per evidences provided in Talk page, that it was not just one event, but multi year (2015-2018, supported by media coverage); not just spring festival, but also and others type of events (also supported by media coverage, such as singing contest in 2017); and there are multiple independent, non-advertisement media coverage; and there are two individual independent coverages (TV interview and Podcast interview) about the organization governance and culture of this org rather than just WP:ROTM. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC) ← this comment is from the page creator Quek157 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable per WP:ORG. I'm convinced by the arguments made by nominator and Quek157 in the talk page discussion - there is just WP:ROTM coverage of the event, not the group. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: Keep@The Mighty Glen, our previous discussion on your talk page, you responded:~~

~~At least two of the new sources you've added are WP: Reliable sources, so the group is clearly notable. Thanks for your work on this. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)~~

~~Could you help me understand what new evidences provided in this discussion here have changed your assertions on it? Thank you! Xinbenlv (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]

It's not a matter of new evidence - I'm just persuaded by the arguments made above that I was wrong to assert that the coverage of the group was in sufficient depth. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this looks to be coasting on inherited notability ATM. Based on coverage, the events are notable (and might benefit from an article), but it doesn't look as if the originating group is. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think even the events deserved coverage, is just WP:ROTM based on promotional sources --Quek157 (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:: Well, good that you said so. If it's a WP:ROTM, certainly it doesn't deserve coverage. The fact it's being covered is a signal that the group have something unique. The fact it's being covered by multiple different media for different events, comes with some reasons, so easily invalidates the accusation of WP:ROTM. For example, in US, Christmas happens every year and people celebrate it everywhere. So normally, media will not cover a random efforts of celebration of Christmas. However, the media covers the New York Rockefeller_Center_Christmas_Tree because it is multiple year, and beyond normal. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC) (page creator)[reply]

:: Per the page WP:ROTM, it is not a guideline nor a policy, the essay's quality is unvetted, the definitions is unclear to me. And I am not convinced it meets WP:ROTM. I'd rather argue based on approved policy and guideline. The article easily meets WP:ORGCRIT with multiple independent reliable sources covering multiple different events and how the groups is successful in reaching the level of achievements. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I used WP:ROTM only as it can't even pass it what to consider under WP:ORGCRIT/WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:AUD. If you can say something reasonable, I am willing to consider WP:ATD but you aren't --Quek157 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::WP:ORGCRIT/WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH, I think these I already covered in previous answer, and I don't have anything to add to ease your doubt. If WP:AUD is in doubt, I'd like to point out of the 5 coverages cited on the page, SinoVision is a national-level media, and KTSF26 is a FCC-licensed TV of a scope of at least regional level based on definition from Newspaper#Local_or_regional. Xinbenlv (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. 10^Eleventeen 23:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reviewing this article I find the references to be notable enough to allow this page to stay. This group is clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 20:03, 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 08:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I changed my mind and withdraw my edits and comments. Closing admin: please feel free to speed delete. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:45, 3 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 List of DC Comics characters. Sandstein 09:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of human superheroes in DC Comics[edit]

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

There is nothing special or particularly notable about being a human superhero, which is what most superheroes are already. Fails WP:LISTCRUFT as having a non notable concept/being unreferenced, and WP:FANCRUFT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this could be sourced to something that reliably did the work for us of working out which characters qualify as "human superheroes in DC Comics", I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to keeping it, but it only took me about two seconds to find an entry for a character (Amanda Waller) who isn't even defined as a superhero (or a hero at all) in her own article. Due to its broad and vague inclusion criteria, this list would be nearly impossible for us to maintain in a reliable way. Vadder (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters - it's a valid search term and redirects are cheap. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I forgot that I started this list in 2009. I gave it a terrible title too. It was supposed to only be for human superheroes without superpowers. So no aliens or metahumans. SL93 (talk) 09:10, 8 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. Sandstein 09:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Barceloux[edit]

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

Non notable entrepreneur. Apparently part of a promotional campaign for his various companies. See adjacent AfD for the most recent one, Axius DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill businessman with zero indications of notability, fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:36, 3 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. Sandstein 09:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axius (company)[edit]

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

Trivial size new company Press Releases and notices. Does not meet current standards for WP:NCORP, DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill startup technology company with zero indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent start-up. The references offered are a mix of proposition description items and routine partership announcements and (distinguishing this IoT service start-up from previous similarly-named corporations and products) my searches are not finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:38, 9 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 Pirivena. Sandstein 09:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunethradevi Pirivena[edit]

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

Queried speed delete as copyvio :: RaviC at 18:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC) wrote in my user talk page that "... The Wikipedia article dates back to 2012, but the article it is supposedly copied from was published in 2014. It is thus a copy from Wikipedia. ...". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I recalled correctly, I had only created a stub of the article. This edit by an IP added the extra content which may be a copyvio (from another source) or not. I suggest keeping the stub as I had originally created it, without the offending content. --RaviC (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RaviC: given that the bulk of the item is a clear copyright infringement, it’s hard to tell if the subject is notable or not.. suggest you strip it back to your original edits and then we can assess it from there. Dan arndt (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RaviC (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pirivena which would improve the target article, which is rather bare bones. At present, there's insufficient sourcing to justify a stand-alone article. Perhaps protect the redirect to prevent the repeat of the copyvio situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at this stage I would have to agree with K.e.coffman that it is essentially a stub article, which would be better served populating the article on Pirivena. Dan arndt (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yeah, merge it to Pirivena. A sentence or two on each of the "types" and "notable instances" would improve the Pirivena article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:20, 7 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 Blackbeard. Sandstein 09:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Thache Jr.[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as "does not expand significantly on article Blackbeard", but how likely is it that Edward Thache Jr. was Blackbeard? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a separate article for Blackbeard but under his given name - why do we need this? Would be fine with a redirect or merge of any information not in the main article. SportingFlyer talk 06:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes a person who might be Blackbeard, but is not at all accepted by the WP Pirate crew that guard that page. It does offer significant new detail as to the military service of Edward Thache Jr. If you can see somehow merging it with "Blackbeard," I'd say that's perfectly acceptable, but I've tried this before and encountered resistance. They seem to feel it may not be Blackbeard. In that regard, this separate article seems appropriate as it could be a different person. SC9370176CEC (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Edward Thache Jr. contains matter that is not on page Blackbeard. If it can be proved that both pages are about the same man, text-merge will be needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge Its pertains to most of the information about Blackbeard. The article is not needed. While some info is different, there are too many similarities. Reb1981 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reb1981, if this article has "many similarities" to the Blackbeard article, could you please be specific and list them? I see very little similarity. For instance, besides the dates of birth and presumed death, what info in the first and main paragraph appears on the Blackbeard page? This article pertains to actual research with primary source material (i.e. real documents). The Blackbeard article comes almost exclusively from one controversial source: A General History of Pyrates of 1724 by Charles Johnson. He almost certainly made up a lot of info that the world has accepted unequivocally for 300 years now... especially the notorious bits. This article includes valuable info that should be available for future conversation. It should not be deleted outright. As I said, if the pirate fans who love GHoP guarding the Blackbeard page can be convinced to give a little, then it could be and should be merged. Again, this is actual research. A General History is a secondary source from 1724, written by a polemical newspaper publisher repeatedly jailed for his Jacobitism (actual name: Nathaniel Mist).SC9370176CEC (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Merge to Blackbeard. However since the identity of Blackbeard of Johnson's book is not quite certain, perhaps an alternative might be to keep this but prune the earlier part of Blackbeard. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blackbeard. Thache is only notable if he is infact Blackbeard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 8 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 Chinese aircraft carrier programme. Sandstein 09:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Type 003 aircraft carrier[edit]

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

Merge to Chinese aircraft carrier programme: Besides the first one, all other references only have very brief mentions of Type 003. The article as it is does not have enough content to be an individual article. Mys_721tx (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nautical-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is borderline (vs. a keep) - as it seems the program has been possibly launched, but construction will be only completed in the late 2020s. Many of the details in the current article seem wrong (or at least not in sync what I've read presently - which may vary from other sources given the BALLish nature of future development). Some sources with some coverage - [38][39][40]. This probably should've gone to a merge discussion and not AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 3 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. Sandstein 09:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samjith Mohammed[edit]

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

I think film editors are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless the meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable film editor with so many claims to notability but there are no independent sources to back them up. This was a draft submission that the user copied to the main namespace after being rejected; see Draft:Samjith Mohammed. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has a substantial body of work in notable films and has sig cov such as here, the use of interviews as contributing to notability is permissible as described here Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not sig coverage. --Saqib (talk) 16:20, 29 May 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)} 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable, but the article should at least include more references. Handoto (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST ,upcoming at best.Now every film editor is not notable and it is not clear how this particular subject is notable Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete The subject in question fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 23:28, 8 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. Sandstein 09:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Daily[edit]

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

This newspaper fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers and also fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Saqib (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:22, 18 May 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)} 19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without sources (the current version is entirely without), this fails V, NPOV, NOR, NOT, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No sources found. Fails WP:GNG — F R ⁺ 06:32, 4 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. Sandstein 09:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily News (Karachi)[edit]

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

This newspaper fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers and also fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Saqib (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:33, 18 May 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)} 19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't find any independent coverage - indeed the link to its homepage seemed to link somewhere else. Without such sources, fails NPOV/NOTINDISCRIMINATE/NOTPROMO. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 2 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. Sandstein 09:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Levin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You might as well add Mike Feinberg for the same reason. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:41, 18 May 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)} 19:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 2 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. Sandstein 09:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crownpoint North Retail Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN small shopping center. Less than 40 stores, appears very WP:ROTM. Tagged since 2011 with no improvement. Prior AFD was no-consensus MB 20:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one reference in the article. Fails WP:GNG. 344917661X 21:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROTM Acnetj (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's actually more detail about it in Denton,_Greater_Manchester#Hat_industry than there is in this article. ▲RedScrees (talk) 20:19, 3 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. Sandstein 09:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of state and government visits to the Russian Federation[edit]

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

per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE/WP:LISTN. A complete list will be excessive, and there's no good way to have a partial list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're from USA or UK. You ought to start with this article. List of heads of state and government visits to the United States That would be fair. But you chose Russian article. I'm not surprised.

Don’t forget to delete these articles too.

List of diplomatic visits to India

List of state visits to Iran

also all articles from [41] and [42].

--Norvikk (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I "started" with this article because it showed up on the new pages feed. The US article is equally problematic; I'd rather not batch the nominations, but if this deletion is viewed favorably I will nominate the other articles as well. The pages on foreign visits by specific heads-of-state are better, I don't plan to nominate any of those. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is an encyclopedia. Seems reasonable to me. Outback the koala (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information could be displayed more sensibly in the articles about the relevant Politicans themselves. Additionally Wikipedia is a not a list of indiscriminate information WP:NOTSTATS. Knobbly (talk) 05:57, 3 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. Sandstein 09:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chellapilla Venkata Rao[edit]

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

Okay, so either we have guidelines or we don't. Excellent article about someone who simply doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. The vast majority of the current sourcing is non-independent. The rest is simply mentions. There is not a single in-depth source about this scholar. Not one. Nothing in the article suggests that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR, and the highest citation count they have (using C. Venkata Rao) as the sole author is 81. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he wrote a monograph on a plant family. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber and extended explanations at the nominators talk page regarding whether Scholar and related metrics is actually appropriate to utilise for such an item JarrahTree 13:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber and extended discussions on the articles talk page [[43]]. In most of the articles I have managed to find, he appears as C.V.Rao. Hence his artcles and citations of them are extremely difficult to find. Searching Rao, C.Rao for C.V. Rao, brings up many wrong hits as there are many Rao's and many C. Raos (somewhat fewer C.V. Raos). Searches on Venkata Rao fail to bring up most of his work, let alone those citing it. However the combination "embryology"+"Malvaceae"+"Rao" in a search on Google on June 3, 2018 produced some 473 results, most of which (> 90% on the first two pages of the results) clearly referenced Chellapilla Venkata Rao or were references to his work. Further, one reviewer (a specialist in Proteaceae) of the monograph on Proteaceae referred to him as "the leading researcher on this family" (Proteaceae), in his review. The phylogenetic website http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/, a resource used by those interested in doing plant phylogenetic research, currently continues to reference his work on anatomy and embryology of the plant families Proteaceae, Malvaceae (which includes his work on Sterculiaceae, Bombacaceae and Malvaceae). MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ariconte (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ariconte (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clear he didn't employ a PR team and was not an attention seeker. Also clear he made major contributions - enough in my view. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolute no brainer His abbreviation for botanical citations is Venk.Rao means he was responsible the publication and naming of new botanic species, that alone meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Add to that the 15 publications listed in the article he meets WP:GNG, his scientific/botanical work meets WP:NSCHOLAR on that as well. Gnan garra 05:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important Botanist who meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:37, 4 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. Sandstein 09:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Muslims (disambiguation)[edit]

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

An unnecessary disambiguation page; the only linked page on the topic is Macedonian Muslims. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are on a similar topic and have similar issues:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I agree these good-faith creations are unnecessary: hatnotes can make the distinctions where required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:57, 5 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. Sandstein 09:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Igal Dahan[edit]

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

Most of the sources are about his fiancée, and the others are either by himself or quote him (without actually writing about him) or simply regurgitate another sources as with Harper's Bazaar, that cites Esquire. There's clearly no need to cite both. This only serves to inflate the citation count and give the false impression that the subject has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No secondary sources. scope_creep (talk) 19:57, 3 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 deleted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kalimbwe[edit]

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

Notability and NPOV concerns. Being president of a Student Representative Council is not a claim of inherent notability, and the coverage is routine coverage of that event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional BLP, much of the sources are written by the subject himself, what coverage is not is either trivial mentions or as part of a larger event and seems rather WP:ROUTINE - him being arrested and released on bail is not enough for notability and seems like ordinary sensationalism, i.e. WP:NOTNEWS. This is also probably WP:G11, I have placed a corresponding tag on the article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the so-called sources also don't mention the subject at all, beyond him being the author... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:38, 2 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.