< 12 March	14 March >

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

The result was Withdrawn I may have been a bit hasty in nominating, my apologies. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interruption (speech)[edit]

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

This reads more like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article and is already covered here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been working with this user as part of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I appreciate your concerns that it may seem essaylike. Could you elaborate on what specifically sounds that way? I'll note that the article is still under active development. It seemed good enough for mainspace, given the sourcing/content, and it has been continually improved since the nomination shortly after moving. Feedback and development are built into the program, but feedback from other Wikipedians is always welcome, too, and I'd encourage you to post some thoughts to the talk page. To the extent there are tone issues, it doesn't seem anywhere near WP:TNT territory. And I think it's inaccurate to say that this topic, the kind of verbal/speech-based interruption in interpersonal communication (studied in communication studies, sociology, linguistics, etc.), is covered by interruption science, a study of task interruption (based in human-computer interaction and cognitive science). Little-to-none of the content in this article is even mentioned there, and the words "communication", "socio*", and "linguis*" don't even appear. I'd urge the nominator to withdraw, if for no other reason than WP:HEY, but will abstain from !voting given my COI due to involvement in this project. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-written and amply sourced article on a notable topic. The Interruption science article referred to by the nom is in an unrelated area. – Uanfala (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is widely studied, and I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the article. Cnilep (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceorl (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. No third-party sources discussing this character, that I could find. Mdwicker (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mdwicker (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor fictional character, already has an entry at LOTR Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the only sourcing being to Tolkien's book itself, there is just no justification for this specific article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless he founded the RohEx courier company and/or Ceorl d'Alene. The article is a regurgitation of probably everything Tolkien ever wrote about this very minor character. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheb- hi bach If not kept, should be merged into some character list, as the French have done at fr:Liste des Hommes de la Terre du Milieu. We have List of Middle-earth characters, but this is simply a list of names, and hopefully some editor would like to spend, oh, say 200 hours, moving things around.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piling on just to emphasize that, in addition to this clearly doesn't meet our notability guidelines, we do the searcher a better service by letting Google show them the LOTR wiki result. More of a WP:RFD sort of rationale, but worth echoing the above I feel. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DesiDime.com[edit]

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

promotional page, not an encyclopedia article in style and format--but a straightforward press release. A speedy seems to have been declined DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage in RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, not enough indepth coverage from indpendent agencies. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De Britto Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Severe doubt if this school satisfies the notability guidelines, as most G-hits are social media or WP-clones. The article itself only uses its own website as source. The Banner talk 22:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which for secondary schools only requires that " independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." In this case there are tons of articles in The Hindu that talk about this school. Some are even online. In case that's not enough, here's another one. I can see plenty more in various databases, but clearly by the notability guideline, two are more than enough. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read RfC on secondary school notability and WP:RS. Just proving that the school exists is not enough any more. The notability must be proven. The Banner talk 23:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent sourcing in the Hindu is more than enough to pass a school AfD, even after the RfC which actually closed as no consensus and not a consensus to overturn our standard practice, as has been confirmed by the closers. Everything else was commentary that was beyond their mandate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think beyond their mandate makes much sense.A RFC-closure is not always about a one-liner yes/no answer to the floated proposal and to me the commentary was perfectly rational and good enough.Obviously, you can have the closure quasi-challenged at AN and the commentary expunged.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Winged Blades of Godric, the closers far exceeded their mandate by trying to explain what the no consensus close meant. Closes can be more than a yes or no, but they should not create new rules that were not clearly proposed and commented on by the community: which is what those citing the RfC claims that it does. The closers made the mistake of trying to provide an answer at the end of a messy discussion. They in turn created a text that has no consensus among the community, as is apparent by the fact that it is still debated as to its validity and meaning a year later. There is no need for a review: it wasn’t part of the actual close to the RfC. Half the community ignores it routinely. It is part of no policy and has no actual policy or guideline status. All the RfC tells us is that there was no consensus as to what we should do at schools, and as such any opinion in an individual schools AfD is equally valid. To be honest, the confusion they created with their excessive reasoning might make it the textbook example of how not to close an RfC. I’ve held back on criticizing their work for the past year, but the fact that no one can agree as to what the close means over a year later means the we should simply treat it as even the closers have admitted is the case; a no consensus close. Nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: multiple independent sources as listed by IP192 established notability.– Lionel^(talk) 00:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Those passing mentions do not a thing to the article. Beside that, reliable sources should be added to the article to prove notability, as it is now just based on the school website. Presuming notability (in my opinion an euphemism for "gambling and praying that there are really useful source out there") should not be used when an article is challenged. Just clear proof. The Banner talk 11:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass the threshold as a high school and considering both the sources given above and the ones already in the article.–Ammarpad (talk)
- Both sources just mention the name, it does not prove the notability. And it is not enough any more just to prove its existence. The Banner talk 11:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long established precedent. RfC on secondary school notability did not result in a consensus to discontinue it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but it stated that Schooloutcomes is a circular argument (and better to be avoided) and that the notability of a school has to be proven, not only its existence. And about the precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Career College (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhi Public School, Riyadh (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundas Public School (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Hardoi (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Alia International Indian School (deleted) The Banner talk 12:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as they have noted themselves, this was not actually the close to the question asked. The answer was no consensus. Yes, we do delete schools more now (which is probably a good thing), but we still keep the overwhelming number of secondary schools, even since the RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your facts straight, The Banner. I didn't mention Outcomes. Literally thousands of school articles have been kept - that means a precedent and an accepted practice. The 5 deleted schools is just the random luck of who turns out to vote on the AfD and some big wind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "long established precedent" could only exist due to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES being just as a keep-policy and a very, very loud group of people. I understand that you are upset over the fact that school-articles can and will be removed when not proven notable, but that is life and changing consensus. But it is a nice trick to reintroduce the tradition of keeping schools without merit, just because school-articles were kept in the past, because school-articles were kept in the past, because school-articles were kept in the past, because school-articles were kept in the past, because school-articles were kept in the past, etc. The Banner talk 20:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those random five deleted articles are all deleted this month. The Banner talk 01:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Sufficient hits in RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above comments. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Raghunathan[edit]

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

Non-notable; fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. hiàn 20:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails notability requirements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a directory listing tbh. Nothing notable spotted. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 11:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslighting Government[edit]

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

Article which is written like an original research essay about a neologistic theory rather than a properly encyclopedic article about a well-studied or well-documented thing. The only properly footnoted reference here is a mere definition of the general concept of gaslighting -- instead, the external links section contains a linkfarm of sources which use the word gaslighting in a political context (almost entirely in relation to Just You Guess Who), but the only one that presumes to define "gaslighting government" as a concept is a YouTube video. All of which means the sources here are being used to synthesize an original research concept, rather than properly supporting or analyzing this as a thing in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Original research is right. We already have an article of gaslighting which in modern political context is a term used to try to shut down a debate.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR/Essay. One ref which links to gaslighting in general not the political kind. Szzuk (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sole source is about the term in general. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Santos[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:SOAPBOX fails GNG, WP:N (people) ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Seattle Times headlined their obit "legendary civil rights leader dies". Plenty of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gets coverage in reliable sources already in the article and looking around I found another one. [1] I agree with FloridaAmy, if a major newspaper says "legendary civil rights leader dies" then he must be a notable person. Dream Focus 18:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the cited sources are obituaries, not actual articles in RS independent of the subject. Friends and family can submit obit articles all over the place. WP is not a memorial, and WP:N requires multiple RS independent of the subject that verify notability. Being a community advocate fails GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Ms. Atsme, you are confused here. The Seattle Times obit is an editorial obit, not a family-submitted obit. It's written by a staff writer and it's a perfectly reasonable way to establish notability. We find the same kind of editorial obit in NBC news, The Seattle Weekly, and so on. And the guy was notable even before he died, see e.g. KUOW story on activism from 1970s. In short, meets and exceeds WP:GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - nope, his activities were local; an activist in his old neighborhood. Sorry, but notability requires multiple RS that verify widespread recognition. The cited sources are local obits, one is in a Slog (whatever that is), 2 more are obits in local news sources, and there's a bio of him in a free online encyclopedia funded by the State of Washington, which comes closer than the local obits but it doesn't satisfy N. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- Ah, come now, Ms. Atsme, it's silly to call coverage from Seattle "local." Seattle has 3.7 million people in the metro area. That's more than many sovereign nations. It's more people than Uruguay. You can't dismiss actual RS from Seattle as "local" unless you're prepared to delete every article on everyone from Uruguay who didn't get covered in non-Uruguayan newspapers. That's clear WP:BIAS. Maybe someone who's only covered in the East Jesus Gazette could be said to have only local coverage, but in this case it's silly. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, that is roughly 8% of the population of Canada (just slightly less than all of Alberta or British Columbia) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, secondary sources. In addition to those sources already in the article, the subject is mentioned in a number of books that pop up on Google Books. Neutrality^talk 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite those books so we can get beyond obits? I will withdraw my AfD if RS (not obits) can be cited or at least show they exist beyond his neighborhood advocacy. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Google Books, type in "Bob Santos" + "Seattle" and you will see. Neutrality^talk 00:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and one book came up, Gang of Four (Seattle), a Seattle publisher. There are other Bob Santos that pull up in the search, but not him. Perhaps a redirect or merge to that one book would be better than deleting. Unless a person has received widespread (national/international) coverage during their lifetime (not only in death cited only to obits), we typically merge or redirect. I'm not aware of any biography that passed notability requirements based only on obituaries but if that's what consensus supports, it will be a first. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has sufficient coverage, for example, in Africana Race and Communication, with a section dedicated to his life and career as a civil rights advocate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Adekanye[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Author (Hildreth gazzard) thinks the article should stay because of the racism incident described in article. — Dudek1337 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 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 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and if the racism event is notable it would be better served in the Spartak article rather than justifying this article. Jay eyem (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. NZFC^(talk) 21:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Racism incident described is a case of WP:BLP1E. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify He could go on loan next season as he is at that age, again another article that's been created way to early. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a case of WP:TOOSOON and does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. I would not be opposed to draftifying. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and also falls under WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Elite Cosmopolitan World[edit]

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

Despite the title, this article purports to be about an upcoming edition of the pageant. But the entire thing -- both the event and the pageant itself -- looks to be a hoax. I find no evidence whatsoever that this pageant exists. The one blue-linked contestant name has an article that doesn't mention this pageant. And the sources for all of the upcoming national pageants? They are almost all to the same Facebook post. Others are to pageant-related news stories that aren't about this pageant.

But it's possible that I'm wrong about the hoax aspect, so I'm nominating here instead of proposing a speedy deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's convincing analysis. WP:HOAX / WP:PROMO, take your pick. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does appear to be a hoax per the nominator (and my own) assessment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax - complete lack of reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Butler (boxer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. The sources are routine coverage of his fights and 2 of the articles are identical. The coverage of Butler is at best 2 sentences in each source. a case of WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it (currently) does not satisfy GNG. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I would not object to the article's future recreation, provided that it meets GNG at that time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine sports reporting is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and he fails the notability criteria for boxers at WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margit Sebők[edit]

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

This page does not have any in-line references. I cannot find any information on the web that does not refer back to this page. There is a Margit Sebők born in 1939 but I have no idea if it is the same person WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hungarian names are of the form [Surname Forename]. I've added a "find sources" template for Sebők Margit. She was not born in 1939 – signed and dated work from 1916 visible here. Some biographical information here (which is not a reliable source for our purposes as far as I can see), also images of some of her work. It'll need a Hungarian speaker to tell us whether any of these results show notability. I can't trace the Cyclopaedia of Hungarian Painters and Graphic Artists cited as a reference. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two artists called Margit Sebők (1879-? and 1939-1994). They might be notable but I haven't found anything about them but very short biographies on the websites of auction houses. (I'm Hungarian.) – Alensha ^talk 23:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG, Cyclopaedia of Hungarian Painters and Graphic Artists nil library holdings ditto Hungarian translation of title (note, this is a gtranslate)(is it known by another name?), gsearches of artist and book brings up nothing (surname 1st or 2nd), looks like no hungarian wp articles on Sebők, i am not hungarian-speaking so of course will be happy to change to redirect/merge or keep if an editor can come up with some (indepth) sources that show notability. ps. hi Alensha, a short bio mite be ok (as one notable cite if a WP:RS) if it shows that Sebők won critical acclaim and/or won any notable art prize, has her works shown/in collections of notable galleries. if you could post a translation on her talkpage that would be great, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a quick look on Hungaricana gives 257 hits for "Sebők Margit". Not all are relevant, and Google translate struggles with Hungarian. Alensha, would you be able to determine whether articles like Galériaavató kötődéssel or Eg ész évben sokszínű program (to simply choose a couple from the first page of search results) would be useful in this discussion? There are lots of further search results. She does seem to have had a gallery named after her. — Hebrides (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margit Sebők (1879) has an extremely short biography here. It says that she studied in an art school (which was the predecessor of the Hungarian University of Fine Arts) between 1889 and 1903, then she lived with Paris and Southern France with her husband, who was also a painter. Later they lived in Szeged and in Budapest. That's all the internet knows about her.
Margit Sebők (1939) is better attested. Here it says she attended the teacher's college in Eger until 1961, worked as a teacher until 1988, had exhibitions in Budapest, Poland and Paris. Her oil paintings and drawings were inspired by nature, she painted plants, animals and people. The first article linked by Hebrides is about a gallery being named after her in Berekfürdő, where she spent her childhood. It is a little more detailed, but not much. The second article is not really about her, it details the programs in the gallery. I have to admit I'm not very knowledgeable about modern art, and I'm unable to tell whether the gallery was named for her because of her significance in the art world or because of her being the only somewhat famous person from her small village (about which even the mayor states in the article that it hasn't got much of a history). – Alensha ^talk 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've browsed through those old newspapers at Hungaricana, only a small number of those 257 occurrences of the name are about her, but some of them seem good enough. Most of them are county newspapers (reaching 3-400,000 readers), 1, 2, 3, these would be enough to prove her notability in Hungarian wikipedia but I don't know if they're enough for English wikipedia's notability rules. If the article can stay, I can write a short bio of her in English. – Alensha ^talk 03:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was the first time I nominated an article for deletion. Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful comments. Also for the hands-on research(!). I would like to add another clue to the mystery of Margit Sebők. Looking on the original author's page, User contributions for Annaauc it appears that user was editing on Wikipedia for two days in 2013, then vanished. The first day Annaauc was adding stubs for Hungarian painters. The notable painters have been expanded over time, the rest left to languish.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am leaning toward keep after Alensha found those sources. Makes me think that its possible even more may exist in different languages. Maybe not all articles produced on Sebők are on the web/digitized? It's harder to judge when you don't speak the language. The sources found by Alensha seem to be substantial and independent, several even include her photograph and examples of her art. I am curious what others may think. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Alensha is referring to Margit Sebők born in 1939, rather than Margit Sebők born in 1879 (the page nominated for deletion).WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it seems like available sources can barely demonstrate that the 1879 person existed. My comment is directed to the other Sebők that Alensha and others found more sources for. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made it clear that most of what I've found is about the younger Sebők. I don't know if the older one is notable for wikipedia. – Alensha ^talk 20:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the article, now it's about the painter born in 1939. I've found two different dates for her death, 1994 and 2000, the latter must be correct as it's on the commemorative plaque created by her son. It looks somewhat odd that a source I used for the wikiarticle mentions 1994, I don't know if I should mention it in the article that some sources erroneously report her death year as 1994. – Alensha ^talk 20:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – thanks to Alensha, I consider we now have an article that meets the General Notability Guideline. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to using this AfD nomination to make a positive improvement to Wikipedia. — Hebrides (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i have struck out my "delete" now that article is about Sebők the younger, well done Alensha. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Coolabahapple :) Thanks to everyone who contributed. – Alensha ^talk 06:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Azerbaijan relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. All there is to these relations is diplomatic recognition. There are no embassies, leader visits, significant trade or migration. LibStar (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources sufficent for WP:GNG, such as:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] Two prime ministers of Albania have visited Azerbaijan in three visits, with 15 ministerial bilateral visits.^[10]^[11]^[12] They have full diplomatic ties and two bilateral diplomatic treaties. There is also an important energy project of some sort between them (maybe a gas pipeline, I haven't thoroughly checked).^[13]^[14]^[15] Note that this is just searching English language sources on google. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "President Bujar Nishani: Albanian-Azerbaijani relations are extremely important". Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ Zardabli, Ismail bey (2014). THE HISTORY OF AZERBAIJAN: from ancient times to the present day. ISBN 9781291971316. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ https://azertag.gov.az/en/xeber/Azerbaijan_Albania_discuss_prospects_for_developing_relations-815701. Retrieved 13 March 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Ties with Azerbaijan of great importance for Albania". AzerNews.az. 21 October 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ "News.Az - Albania-Azerbaijan relations beyond TAP". news.az. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ "Albanian President awarded title of honorary doctor by Azerbaijan University of Languages". TvKlan.al (in Albanian). Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ "Azerbaijan". www.azerbaijan.az. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ "Albanian president awarded title of honorary doctor of Azerbaijan University of Languages". https://azvision.az. Retrieved 13 March 2018. ((cite web)): External link in |website= (help)
^ Baguirov, Adil. "VAR: Caucasian Albania -- history of ancient North Azerbaijan, Arran, Karabakh (Artsakh) / Zerbaijan.com". www.zerbaijan.com. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ http://www.mfa.gov.az/files/file/Azerbaijan_-_Albania_relations_08.09.2014.pdf
^ "Presenting credentials to the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, HE Ilham Aliyev | Albanian Embassy in Turkey". www.ambasadat.gov.al. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ "Official web-site of President of Azerbaijan Republic - NEWS » Receptions Ilham Aliyev received an Albanian delegation led by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Edmond Haxhinasto". en.president.az. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ Bayramov, Agha (2017). "Azerbaijan and the new energy geopolitics of Southeastern Europe". Caucasus Survey. 5 (2): 196–198. doi:10.1080/23761199.2017.1295513.
^ "Albania highlights importance of Azerbaijani energy project". AzerNews.az. 15 February 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
^ "Albania Azerbaijan relations - AzerNews.az". www.azernews.az. Retrieved 13 March 2018.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Reed[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, referenced entirely to pieces of her own writing (as well as the post-nomination addition of a WP:ELNO-violating linkfarm of primary sources and Q&A interviews in which she's the speaker and not the subject). This is not how you source a writer as notable enough for a Wikipedia article: she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people, not the bylined author of reliable source coverage of other things, to clear Wikipedia's notability tests. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews do not count towards notability. So we have 0 sources that count as reliable, 3rd-party secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs don't support notability, they aren't about her or are written by her. Szzuk (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodshop[edit]

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

Promotional article written like an IPO summary. Highly promotional. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable company. Capitals00 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and non-notable company. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not commenting on the above at the moment as I have yet to fully assess it, but I have so far found a few pieces in Entrepreneur(interview, another interview) about/mentioning this site, and a Forbes interview. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes interview is on a sites subdomain, which means it is user generated and Non RS. Its Forbes own web hosting platform. Here is what Entrepreneur says on its articles: Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. It is also Non RS. scope_creep (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Didn't intend to sound like I was borderline "keep" - I am neutral at this time - I was just stating that they did exist & giving "preliminary findings" as it were. Will !vote shortly. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was making more of statement of the state the references, more than anything else. scope_creep (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete you'd have thought for a company in existence since 2005 that it may have gained some notability in that time. I can't see much beyond the article that appears largely promotional and devoid of any actual tangible encyclopedic content. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra de Scheel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP, with a decidedly unencyclopedic advertorial lean to the writing tone, of a person notable only as a local radio personality (on a low-power radio station with a niche format, no less) and as yet non-winning candidate in a mayoral election. As always, neither of these is an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself — radio personalities need to have a national audience, not just a local one, to be presumed notable as broadcasters, and politicians have to win the election, not just run in it, to be presumed notable as politicians. But the references here are not demonstrating that she passes WP:GNG as the subject of media coverage: there's a lot of primary sourcing, such as press releases from her own company and staff profiles and pieces of her own writing and her own campaign website, there are WP:CIRCULAR Wikipedia mirrors, there are user-generated genealogies, and on and so forth — but what there isn't, anywhere in this entire overheated reference bomb of 43 citations supporting less than 500 words of content, is even one solitary piece of reliable source coverage about her in a media outlet independent of her own PR bumf. Which means that none of the sourcing here gets her over GNG, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG — even her family genealogy is not in and of itself a notability freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage about her, because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. (Note: first AFD discussion was about the same person, but was conducted a full decade ago and claimed notability for purely genealogical reasons without mentioning anything about radio or politics at all, so I'm not comfortable speedying this as a recreation of deleted content. The notability claim here still isn't a good one by any stretch, but it is a different one than the first attempt.) Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. And certainly doesn't pass either WP:ENT or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, I run searches on several known mirrors and landed on that train-wreck of an article. As a BLP, I've gone through and removed the obvious mirrors/blogs and the material sourced to them. I hate to do that with an active AFD but it is still a BLP, and some of that could have been politically derogatory. What's left isn't much. Seems to be a "radio host" and a fringe candidate for the mayor of Phoenix. Could not locate much in the line of RS to support any of that. As noted, mostly just primary sources and junk. Kuru (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat's virtuoso evisceration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Indian English#Vocabulary. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do the needful[edit]

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

Article consists mostly of original research, and the subject doesn't really have enough coverage to be notable. The only linked source doesn't help either. It might be good enough as a dictionary entry, but it's hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia. Smtchahal (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwiki~~ to wiktionary - this currently is a dictdef of an idiom, and nothing more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Andrew D's sources, I think there may be enough for an article, or at least a redirect to Indian English#Vocabulary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "Transwiki" isn't a thing at all anymore. Switching vote to Redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary, per Power~enwiki. It is clearly a dictionary definition. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of coverage, if you look for it, including the following. It therefore passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t prepone it – do the needful. in The Guardian
10 classic Indianisms at CNN
Doing the Needful in the New York Times
Literacy as Translingual Practice, Routledge, 2013, p. 217, ISBN 9780415524667, Needful is another Indian English term, a direct translation from "zaroori," Urdu for something that needs prompt attention.

Those are all articles defining it. How it is not a dictionary term then? Natureium (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DICDEF which explains our policy and difference between dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles. Definition is not a difference because "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions". Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, as usual you have either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting the policy, which reads such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.) Nothing currently in the article falls outside these dictionaric parameters, despite your strawman argument here that it is everyone except you that is misunderstanding the policy excluding stub articles that define a word or phrase. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwiki~~Redirect- Per Andrew D., whose sources help confirm this is noting more than a dictionary term.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Changing: according to Ansh, transwiki is a bad option. Power~wiki has offered an alternative that I can support.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: Are you aware that Transwiki means Delete and move to wiktionary? Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about the removed content. [2] Does anyone have access to the paysite of Oxford dictionary? Can you confirm the information is somewhere on there? I'm not sure if this could be expanded into an article or not, instead of just a dictionary entry. Dream Focus 21:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The paysite has no more informtion than what you can freely read here: [3] Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prince of Thieves is quite mistaken. The full OED has an extensive entry for the word needful. When used as a noun, it provides 4 different sense for the word:

Needful people – the needy
As "needfuls" meaning necessities
As "the needful", especially in the phrase "to do the needful", meaning that which is necessary
The cash or money required for something

It gives many examples of usage but few of them seem to relate to the modern Indian English usage. The closest seems to be from 1929, "The conspirators at Delhi..sent orders..‘to look out and do the needful at once’." I don't think that source helps us much with the main point of the article which is about the way that this phrase is so characteristic of modern Indian English as a separate dialect. I am myself very familiar with this and it's part of a small set of words which tend to stand out when used to communicate with UK or US speakers. The sources I provide above explain this in detail. What we really need is some equivalent of Comparison of American and British English and the page in question would be a start in building this. Andrew D. (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it is well used in Indian English. See below. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1998). Indian English. In McArthur, T.(Ed.), Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 13 Mar. 2018, from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780192800619.001.0001/acref-9780192800619-e-597.

'Vocabulary: hybrids, adaptations, and idioms'
The great variety of mixed and adapted usages exists both as part of English and as a consequence of widespread code-mixing between English and especially Hindi:
...
(3) Words more or less archaic in BrE and AmE, but used in IndE, such as dicky (the boot/trunk of a car), needful (‘Please do the needful, Sri Patel’), stepney a spare wheel or tyre, and thrice (‘I was seeing him thrice last week’).

Needful. (2014). In Collins Dictionaries (Ed.), Collins English Dictionary (12th ed.). London, UK: Collins. Retrieved from https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hcengdict/needful/0.

needful (ˈniːdfʊl)
from Collins English Dictionary
adj
1 necessary; needed; required
2 archaic needy; poverty-stricken ▷n
3 the needful informal money or funds: do you have the needful?
4 do the needful to perform a necessary task

Comment - Transwiki is a deprecated process - wiktionary and other projects understandably don't want our crap. ansh 666 17:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't keep I'm not familiar with transwiki and for all I know Ansh's comment just above could be right. But clearly NOTDIC applies, since even if it is not just a definition it currently contains nothing but linguistic information on etymology, usage, etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator's note) From what I can see in the discussion, there is coverage, but still not enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Maybe it could be mentioned in a section in Indian English or somewhere similar, but any claims of encyclopedic significance made in the article (including outlandish ones like use of the phrase in the context of "globalized call centers") that could've been reasons to keep it are not significantly covered in any of the mentioned sources. Smtchahal (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dear Closing Editor, Kindly do the needful and close this discussion as delete. A familiar phrase in common use 200 years ago in English (ngram here: [4], lingered in India. A familiar pattern, many words and phrases linger only in remote corners of the Empire. (In England, they still say "reckon" where proper Americans say "calculate" ;) . Anyone who wants to put it in a dictionary somewhere should feel free - but it is not a proper subject for an encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those wanting to transwiki this page, do the needful already exists on Wiktionary. SpinningSpark 12:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ecuador TV. SpinningSpark 13:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ECTV[edit]

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

Non-notable city owned Cable access channel that broadcasts city council meetings amd high school games for a city with under 25,000 people. At best the channel might warrent a ssentence on the city's page. An attempt to redirect the title to notable Ecuador TV (an appropriate redirect as they use the same call sign) was reversed. Legacypac (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ecuador TV as the article is not a notable topic, but is a plausible search term, and that is a legitimate target. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it is worth, searching for ECTV in Evanston, Illinois seems to get more results at google, newspapers.com, etc than ECTV in Edwardsville, Illinois (this may be because Evanston is a college town and a Chicago suburb). But it happens that ECTV in Edmonton gets more results than Edwardsville (here it stands for Edmonton Chinese Television). Other prominent ECTVs include Escambia County Television (Florida), Eastern Connecticut Television, East Chicago Television, Elizabethtown College Television (Pennsylvania), and so on. Ecuador TV (whose acronym actually seems to be "EcTV") seems to get the most hits and to have the biggest marketing budget (these two things are correlated). I think Edwardsville's ECTV should be merged into the Edwardsville article (as one line in the media section), I don't see enough sourcing to write a NOR, NPOV article on it. I'm not sure if ECTV itself should point to Ecuador TV or become a disambiguation page - I would support a disambig if someone wanted to make it, but think the redirect works in the meantime as articles about the other ECTVs don't seem to exist. In my opinion, Escambia County Television, East Connecticut Television, and East Chicago Television all have fair cases for suitability in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I've added ECTV back into the Edwardsville article with a ref, so no merge is neccesary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note related discussion User_talk:Rusf10#Please_do_not_delete_articles_out_of_process Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect to unrelated Ecuador TV- No sources in the article and a Google search doesn't show much either, just this [5] and a handful of articles from the local town paper. It exists, but nothing shows that it is notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, my !vote is to redirect ~~keeping~~ deleting the history. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value in keeping any of the content here, but I'm okay with either redirect option.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirection had not been reversed, it would have been no problem, but now that we are here we should wipe out the temptation for someone to unredirect it. Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they would need consensus to restore it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sure but who is watching a redirect like this? Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point that. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding who watches a page like this: since July 2015 until the start of this AfD/redirect/whatever, this page got 3 views a day[6], was on less than 30 watchlists[7], had 2 (now 1) inbound link from article space, and zero edits total. So my guess is that if this page were unredirected and made into a page which doesn't meet our standards, it could take three years or more and 10,000+ page views before an editor takes action. The encyclopedia survived the last ten years with an article at ECTV that doesn't really meet our current standards. I think the hypothetical that it is un-redirected and isn't re-redirected isn't a serious enough risk to outweigh WP:PRESERVE. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pausanias of Orestis#Heromenes. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heromenes[edit]

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

Page's content is very less(and non-notable itself as an article) and all of this is already mentioned in Phillip II of Macedon. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It would be better redirected to Pausanias of Orestis#Heromenes. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- My guess is that we know nothing about him, apart from what is in the article. If so, a redirect is the best solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Van Komen[edit]

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

Only a high school athlete. Maybe a very tall and pretty good one, but still playing in high school and only 15. Legacypac (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is it relevant how old the subject is or which school he attends? Shouldn't the only question be whether he has received significant coverage to establish his notability? With all due respect to WP:OSE, other high school players are deemed notable enough for inclusion (e.g. Bol Bol) after all. Regards SoWhy 17:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NHSPHSATH is an exclusionary standard. High school student-athletes are generally excluded unless there is extraordinary coverage; WP:MILL coverage in local newspapers is never sufficient even if it meets the letter of WP:GNG. That said, if the claim of his being 7'5" tall can be verified, I expect such coverage will exist soon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware of the standards. However, the nominator has not argued that he fails these standards but merely that his school and age are grounds for deletion. Which, as you say yourself, is not necessarily the case. Whether the coverage that exists is sufficient to meet this standard (or GNG or BIO), is something that can and should be discussed, preferably by people familiar with such subjects. Regards So Why 09:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By saying he is only a high school athlete I'm suggesting he fails the inclusion standards for athletes. No inclusion standard I'm aware of for any sport encourages pages on high school athletes competing on high school teams. If he was an Olympic gymnast it would be different. Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There are clear notability guidelines for basketball players and he fails all of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Baby in the Manger[edit]

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

The article cites no references, and is little more than an infobox. I am unable to find any substantial reviews of the novel, or other reliable sources. The book is a very minor work by Daniel Handler which never achieved mainstream recognition. If the article is deleted, File:TheBabyintheManger.png should also be deleted. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, zero library holdings (wheres the snicket museum/library?, gsearch brings up no reviews or useable cites, this looks like a very small print run, scarce collectable book if the prices bookseller sites are asking is anything to go by, but there is nothing to make it notable for a standalone article, i dont believe snicket/handler is significant enough for this book to be covered by no. 5 of nbook, although would also be happy with a "redirect" to Lemony Snicket bibliography depending on wikireader interest. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2002/december/1217snicket.html had 65 copies made as a student project. Is not WP:NBOOK Barkeep49 (talk)

wow, thanks Barkeep49, no wonder they're so rare (and pricey:)), yep a definite delete as i said above. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable book. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) I'm closing this one as keep. Otherwise, it'll just be relisted, and the sources provided by the only interested editor seems to prove GNG. The article looks fairly well sourced. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DopeNation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, not a particularly notable ensemble, only claim to fame is that the individual artists were named for winning non-major awards. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DopeNation is well known music duo in the country. I do understand you by the non major award they currently have. But then my point is they are well known both individually and as a team (DopeNation). They’ve produced for big acts in Ghana’s music entertainment. Such as; Shatta Wale http://www.ghanamotion.com/shatta-wale-commander-bush-prod-b2/, Ebony Reigns http://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/music/music-video-ebony-poison-feat-gatdoe-id6095254.html, Pappy Kojo https://kubilive.com/meet-twistdopekidtwist-the-producer-behind-pappykojos-hit-song-nana-ama/, etc. At the moment, the article is still being worked on. Kwamevaughan (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article claims they had a single on a Ghana's national music chart and thus would meet notability for artists, but the sources used do not support that claim. Acebulf (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search for anything that supported that claim, but nothing was found. As noted below, the author of the page has since removed that claim from the article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have revisited the page, as much sources can't be pulled to back this up, I have removed the statement. Kindly re=check the article. Many thanks. Kwamevaughan (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Kolbert: Hello, I managed to pull up a major award half of the duo was nominated for. “Ghana Music Honours 2017” with reference to support it. Thank you. Kwamevaughan (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamevaughan: The article's references seem to be mostly trivial coverage of the group. Has any news done an article talking about their life or their music as a whole? There needs to be something like that for the article to be notable. Can you look at the criteria at WP:NMUSIC and see which ones the group qualifies for, so that sources can be pulled that confirm it? Acebulf (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acebulf: I’m pulling sources on their music and personal life. I’m not connected to them so I think Inwill throw in for other Ghanaian wikipeians to contribute to this.

Also I will check on the guideline and get back to you ASAP. Kwamevaughan (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acebulf: Hello, I have managed to get articles talking about their personal and music life. Kindly look at it. http://livefmghana.com/2017/10/10/introduction-dopenation-twin-revolution-ghanaian-music/ http://eboxafrica.com/2018/02/26/get-familiar-dopenation/ https://beatznation.com/profile/b2/ Kwamevaughan (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Kolbert: *@Acebulf: In reference to WP:NMUSIC The ensemble "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."

Links: http://livefmghana.com/2017/10/10/introduction-dopenation-twin-revolution-ghanaian-music/

http://eboxafrica.com/2018/02/26/get-familiar-dopenation/

2.Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

Link: http://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/music/2017-ghana-music-honours-vvip-r2bees-lead-nominees-list-with-4-see-complete-list-id6260686.html

1adp0. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

They have produced for notable musicians; including Shatta Wale, E.L, Ebony Reigns, Pappy Kojo, Joey B, Flowking Stone, etc.

Links: http://www.ghanamotion.com/flowking-stone-away-bus-prod-by-b2/ http://www.ghanamotion.com/tinny-bugatti-ft-zeal-prod-b2/ http://www.ghanamotion.com/pappy-kojo-nana-ama/ http://www.ghanamotion.com/shatta-wale-x-pope-skinny-shut-up-prod-by-b2/ http://www.ghanamotion.com/joey-b-wow-ft-e-l-prod-by-b2/

Keep Hello, There has been no comment on the said article since it was tagged for deletion. I have proven the article meets WP:NMUSIC and thus be considered for inclusion on Wikipedia.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamevaughan (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Most of what I've seen above indicates the notability of B2, and not the notability of Twist, but as a group, judging notability is particularily difficult. The most probable claim for notability, in my view, is that the group seems to have been picked up by a couple websites as indicated by Kwamevaughan. I have my doubts on the reliability of those sources, and whether or not they are, or are based on, promotional material. What I'd recommend here, would be to move the article on B2, and mention Dopenation as part of that article. Acebulf (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, the group (DopeNation) have been nominated in this year's, Vodafone Ghana Music Awards. And that's a major award in the country. For ref: https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/2018-Vodafone-Ghana-Music-Awards-Full-list-of-nominees-631326 , http://livefmghana.com/2018/02/23/dopenation-for-vgmaunsung2018/

Keep I believe with the nomination of the group in Ghana’s biggest award, (VGMA) it proves how notable the group is and thus should be included in Wiki. Kwamevaughan (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a number of reliable sources have been found for the ensemble as detailed above so that WP:GNG is passed. Kwamevaughan (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kimberlin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural deletion request based on VRTS ticket # 2018022310001561. Excerpts from the request are as follows:

Brett Kimberlin Wikipedia page violates its own policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

This page was originally put up by people associated with Andrew Breibart in order to smear me and deprive me of being able to receive funding for my non-profit organizations. Moderators initially removed it because of WP policies regarding living persons. Finally, the Breitbots, led by Breitbart/Sputnik reporter Lee Stranahan, began a pressure campaign to force WP to keep the page over my strong objections. At the time, Stranahan also launched "Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin" to further that smear campaign. I eventually sued the whole lot of them in federal court, and more than a dozen settled the defamation/invasion of privacy claims by removing content and paying me money. I do not fit the description of a "notable person" since the crime I was accused of was local and it was 40 years ago. Even the Breitbots I sued were unable to convince any judge that I was a "public figure" under First Amendment analysis. If I am not a public figure, then I should not be deemed notable by WP.

Parts of the WP read like a tabloid with sensationalism and total disregard for my privacy. I have been the subject of a right-wing smear job that lasted years because of my work running a progressive non-profit. Right wingers have used this WP as part of their toolset against me, knowing full well that anyone who considers working with or funding me will consult WP first. If I were living in Europe, I would have a right to be forgotten and left alone for things that happened 40 years ago. Why should I be treated differently in the US? The right wing uses this WP as a Scarlet Letter to whip and shame me in the public square even though I have spent the past 20 years devoting my life to progressive causes, kindness, and justice. Enough is enough.

In short, the entire WP falsely portrays me, my life and my work. The WP relies on dead links, people I sued and won cases against, and asserts that the criminal trial against me was somehow legitimate when it was based on hypnotic testimony that has since been banned from all federal and state trials in the US and Canada. In fact, my case was the last federal case in the country to allow hypnotic testimony.

What is left in the WP after disregarding the above is non-important. Who cares if I was arrested for a marijuana conspiracy 40 years ago? It's legal now and WP does not have articles on every person who was arrested for marijuana conspiracies decades ago. Who cares if I have been involved in litigation or got arrested as a teenager for perjury? And why in God's name does WP talk about a perjury conviction that occurred when I was a teenager and was based on things that occurred when I was a juvenile. That juvenile record was expunged yet WP dredges it up and puts it in the first sentence describing my criminal convictions. Have you no shame? Is that what WP thinks is "right?" Is that not an invasion of my privacy? I was a juvenile for God's sake.

On a final note, recently Twitter, Facebook, Medium and other social media orgs have begun proactively removing fake news, disinformation, bots, trolls and other data from their platforms. Most of this information was generated by Russian operatives and right-wing operatives who use these tactics to harm their targets. As noted above, my WP page was started by Breitbart/Russian operatives to harm me with disinformation, innuendo and smears. This has become abundantly clear of late with Lee Stranahan now working for Sputnik after working for Breitbart when he started the WP page. That alone should be enough for you to remove the page. You guys got "had" by these right-wing smear artists. Now it's time to make things right by refusing to be their bludgeon any longer.

In short, please delete these pages. I am not able to do so myself because of all the WP coding required and I do not want to give the right wing trolls another opportunity to smear me more.

There is more content, mostly of the "fix this" nature and concerns about BLP violations on the talk page, but these are not entirely relevant to this AFD and ~~will be~~have been posted on the talk page ~~only if this deletion nomination fails~~. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Get for real. Just hit the GNews link above to see that this guy is beyond notable. If there are BLP considerations they can be solved by editing, but TBH, I don't see any in the article, which is extraordinarily well-sourced. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG by a long long mile. Although a quick scan of the article does seem like it may have an over-reliance of primary docs (including court records) that should probably be aggressively pruned, this article is no where near WP:NUKEIT. FWIW, I think he is materially misrepresenting the outcome of some of those court cases above. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets basic WP:BIO criterion. Most of the subjects reasons for deletion either are both false and irrelevant (e.g. the claim that the marijuana is legal now). Individual is also not BLP1E since there are a whole bunch of things they've done that have gotten attention. There's a substantial argument that the article has weight issues, and much more emphasis should be placed on Kimberlin's current work. I will note that the previous AFD was closed as keep by SNOW Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Kimberlin. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. and basic WP:BIO.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable with in-depth coverage spanning 40 years. Deletion is not cleanup and nor does it seem that the article is in such a sorry state - it seems fairly decent and well sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it was this or continue a non-productive discussion at OTRS. I have posted the full range of concerns on the talk page, and hopefully this will spur some folk to make some inroads on the more egregious of the concerns. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that you started this AfD to get a discussion going at the talk page. AfD is not a clean-up service.BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I admit that I started this AFD because the subject of the article was unable to do it themselves. I posted the full request at the talk page because it is clear that the nomination will result in a "keep" result, and I don't want to forget to post the full thing when it closes. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says: This is a procedural deletion request based on OTRS ticket... Therefore this is procedural, and Primefac really can't be accused of using AfD as a cleanup service. This had to happen, however obvious the outcome. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No fault to procedural nom. And it is ok for the BLP (or someone saying they are) to request this - it won't be the first AfD to SNOW - and it will be the issue and request to bed, for a time.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Just piling on now. The subject seems to be a serial litigator but that problem is something for the WMF to worry about. The article is well sourced and there are numerous additional sources to support it if needed, dead links are routinely archived by archive.org and we can use their copies as sources if needed (unless they are removed by court order of course). I suggest Kimberlin gets back to suing the Breitbots if they are damaging his reputation, because other than improving the article to have a better balance, there isn't much that we can do here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not possible to damage the reputation of a conspiracy nut like this guy. Ditto for the reputation of a murderer. He is a criminal,

and his reputation inherently reflects that fact. I think you should also avoid the parroting his terms of insult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just his tone of attack on other people makes me want to keep this article. It is well sourced and shows his long standing role as a disruptive litigator. Assuming the claims of forcing bloggers to remove content on him are ture, it shows that current civil procedures are not as protective of the First Admendment as they should be, and also the success of lawfare, the waging of war through civil litigation, where the process become the punishment, and the fact that most people would rather save money than stand for principals leads to victory. I am leery of over-coverage of conspiracy nuts like Kimberlin, but his involvent in highly publicized murders alone is grounds for coverage. The rest of his activities amount to noise, and Tottenburg does not suprise me as the one who broke his bizarre story, considering the hateful things she spewed on the airwaves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We shouldn't even being discussing this. The idea that someone can campaign to have their own article deleted because it contains defamatory, i.e. accurate, information about them is absurd. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following comment moved from talk page^[8] with minor c/e. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See definition "chutzpah". Kimberlin is a convicted bomber, a convicted drug smuggler, and a convicted perjurer - all acceptably sourced. He is also a vexious litigant who has filed pro se scores of federal and state lawsuits to suppress reporting of his history and activities - see multiple entries patterico.com by assistant district attorney P. Frey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ln1965 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems self-evidently notable. Subject's concern seems principally to be that people won't give him money if they read the article and learn he is a sociopathic criminal. Oh dear.Kremlintroll (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A reminder that the subject is a living person and subject to WP:BLP. Your own negative opinions on the subject are not terribly relevant to whether we should keep the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best solution to the awkward fact that when everyone can edit, awkward situations will arise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that personal opinions of Kimberlin aren't particularly relevant to this discussion. For example, describing Bret's psychological condition-which is unattainable to people who aren't currently treating him in a professional capacity, is immaterial. Other facts, e.g. that he is a convicted criminal, are part of the public record, and I don't see a problem with pointing them out during this discussion. A bigger problem, from my perspective, is the ability of someone to absorb the time of Wikipedians with a pointless debate over whether we should remove accurate-but highly unflattering-information about the complainant. Much less, delete an entire article about that person because he feels it might encroach upon his ability to raise money for himself. This seems like a flagrant abuse of this process. If we didn't acquiesce to Jimmy Wales when he wanted to delete information that he felt was unflattering to his public persona-information that was much less critical to the article in question-I don't see why we should accommodate someone who has contributed nothing of value to this website, other than to consume the time of volunteers in a pointless debate whose outcome is foreordained. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viviane Brunieri[edit]

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

See. No work reelevante as model or pornstar. "Just one person doing their job." Public person just for being the ex-girlfriend of a famous football player. Their appearances were in questionable reliability programs, always guests appearances, to discuss polemics of their personal life.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She was briefly the girlfriend of a famous Brazilian footballer. Twelve years later, she was briefly a porn actress with a handful of typical roles before retiring. That is all verifiable but definitely does not make her notable. She does not pass the overly lenient porn notability "guideline". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Notability is not inherited not a guideline I favour but it seems fair in this case Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards ,fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patola (1988 film)[edit]

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

Article was proposed for deletion, but was deproded with the comment that notable actors are present. Nominating this for deletion as the article does not list any WP:RS and fails WP:NFILM. Presence of notable actors does not make the subject notable as notability is not inherited. Hagennos^Talk 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 17:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 17:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--per nom.Nothing in offline sources.For the record, the de-prodding by Necrothesp was good and rational enough.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has always been generally accepted that films that star notable actors are themselves notable. Frankly, if this was a British or American film keeping would have been a done deal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. Typical stuff up, turns out he received a Grammy nomination for BEST REMIXED RECORDING, NON-CLASSICAL - Like A Child (Carl Craig Remix)[9], in 2007. (non-admin closure) Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Craig[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The article makes a big effort to make him sound relevant but ends up just being promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PROMO. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Get for real! Meets GNG for sure, but even more clearly meets WP:NBAND criterion #7, which states: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city." The city, of course, is Detroit. And the evidence is, e.g., NPR review of Versus: "Detroit's electronic-music deity Carl Craig" or Mixmag: "the Detroit legend" or Village Voice review of Versus: "Detroit Techno veteran Carl Craig." or Billboard review of Versus: "techno luminary Carl Craig" not to mention Mixmag again: "Arriving onto the scene shortly after the birth of techno as one of the forerunners in Detroit’s second wave, Carl Craig has been leading the way for musical innovation for nearly three decades." Did I say NBAND #7? Forget it. Obviously meets GNG with reviews in Billboard, the Village Voice, Mixmag, Clash right here: [10], a profile in the Herald Sun, a review in the Financial Times of all places (sorry for paywall), a squib in the New Yorker, for God's sake, an interview in Fact here: [11], and DJ Mag calls him one of the most important artists in techno, and so on. Another extraordinarily irresponsible nomination. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: I did see (most) the sources you list. I was looking for something substantial, preferably something that would support some encyclopedia content and wasn't a quasi-primary source like an interview. But are you saying that WP:NBAND #7 is definitely met? Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Pings don't seem to work on IP editors. Let's forget about NBAND #7 for a bit and why don't you explain why those sources aren't substantial. Are you saying, e.g., that you saw the guy profiled in the Herald Sun, interviewed in Fact, his albums reviewed in Billboard and the Village Voice and by NPR and you decided that that's not substantial coverage? That seems kooky. But yes, NBAND #7, a much, much weaker criterion than GNG, is clearly met. Just google Detroit techno innovator and see how many times Carl Craig comes up. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact the author felt it necessary to write:

Carl Craig (born May 22, 1969) is an American electronic music producer, considered to be one of the most important names in the Detroit second generation of techno musicians. According to an article about Craig, "Of this group, Craig was often recognised as being the most artful and the most willing to engage the rapidly growing shape of techno outside Detroit."[1] Craig has approached techno using inspiration from a wide range of musical genres, including jazz and soul.

Is in my opinion because there isn't enough material, i.e it's not substantial. For example:

http://www.factmag.com/2017/04/25/carl-craig-versus-interview/ - interview is quasi-primary source

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/27/525542911/first-listen-carl-craig-versus - very positive but barely mentions Craig.

http://mixmag.net/read/carl-craig-in-the-lab-nyc-brandedcontent-dj-lab - big writing says: "SPONSORED EDITORIAL" so not usable (it's paid content)

http://mixmag.net/read/carl-craig-in-the-lab-ibz-dj-lab - barely mentions him, and after the last paid article this dubious.

https://www.villagevoice.com/2017/07/20/carl-craigs-string-theory-the-detroit-house-pioneer-gets-orchestral/ - this is pretty good since it talks about his music in reasoanble detail.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/dance/7759633/carl-craig-at-les-versus-album-interview-2017 - interview is quasi-primary source

http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/carl-craig-versus - contains no infomation on Craig at all, being a review of one of his songs.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/us-techno-great-carl-craig-on-going-symphonic-musical-snobbery-and-the-business-of-marriage/news-story/7b73ecd2074b4611d23a3b867bd92457?nk=050dc41a1422f77660def572dd2e9d39-1520950569 - interview is quasi-primary source

review in the Financial Times - paywall so no idea, could be good because the FT is normally good.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/carl-craigs-detroit-love - barely a mention, no information

http://www.factmag.com/2017/04/25/carl-craig-versus-interview/ - interview is quasi-primary source

https://djmag.com/features/zone-carl-craigs-orchestra - interview is quasi-primary source

I don't see how this meets WP:GNG, there is barely 2-3 decent sources, with no information beyond "Craig is a techno musician, we hear he is big in Detroit" -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- You're like King Canute here, friend. Let's look at:
- CMJ Sept 2001
- Technorebels: The renegades of electronic funk
- CMJ interview Oct 11, 1999
- CMJ March 1997
- Energy Flash -- A whole chapter on Detroit dance music with Craig name-checked in the subhead.
- Unlocking the Groove -- Detailed analysis of Craig tracks
- Last Night a DJ Saved My Life: The History of the Disc Jockey

Essentially, this nomination is a lost cause. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- And the coup de grace? Meets WP:BAND criterion #8: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award" as he was nominated for a Grammy in 2007. Time to withdraw, my esteemed colleague. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cabayi (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast[edit]

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

Non-notable subsidiary. Article's author finds a redirect to the parent company unacceptable. Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator additional source shows some sign of a claim of notability. Cabayi (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per apparent failure of WP:BEFORE, precisely D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search. Please, bear in mind that, when searching through news coverage on the internet, the Serbian media in their coverage barely refers to "Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast" company under its full legal name, rather as just Leoni. Also, a focus should not be on a relationship between its parent company and Leoni in Serbia, but on it as a notable Serbian company with foreign capital (in a country of 7 million people, with 2.5 million labor force), which has around 6,000 employees making it one of the largest companies in Serbia. Also, almost every statement in the article has an independent reference, in line with WP:ORG.--AirWolf ^talk 01:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AirWolf, the references provided are (broken links to) listings in business registries (fail WP:NCORP), an article in dw.com which focuses on the use of subsidies to attract investment into eastern Europe, or WP:CRYSTAL articles about factories that will be built. I agree the focus should not be on its relationship with the parent company but you don't make any assertions of notability for the subsidiary. The assertion you made here, that it's one of the largest companies in Serbia, would (if supported by reliable, verifiable, independent sources) answer all my issues with the article. Cabayi (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi When it comes to its size, financial figures and notability - "One of the largest companies in Serbia" - СТО НАЈ... ПРИВРЕДНИХ ДРУШТАВА У РЕПУБЛИЦИ СРБИЈИ У 2016, apr.gov.rs, page 16-17 (in Serbian). I'll try to find a solution for "broken links" to financial figures, somehow there is a problem when trying to reach a specified link in website's repository. When it comes to other references, the WP:BALL that you have pointed to is not violated - even when it comes to facilities that are being built, there are no violations. For example, the same principle was applied when Apple's second campus was being built. --AirWolf ^talk 11:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure i find 62nd & 65th to be really notable but it is a claim to some notability so I've added that to the article & withdraw the AfD nomination. Thanks for the further research and I hope you manage to find a fix for the broken links. Cabayi (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Sahai Jat[edit]

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

Not notable. Article apparently created by a relative. Sitush (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Sahai Jat is notable person in Phagi tehsil (Sub district of Jaipur district), Rajasthan. He is well-known person in his area Jaipur. -Ashok Todawata (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GNG and note what is explained at WP:LOCALFAME. You need to find decent coverage in independnet, reliable sources to support your claim. And you should not be editing the article anyway, per WP:COI. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete--A7 exists for these cases:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even when it has been de-PRODed? I know this is a waste of everyone's time but it isn't my doing, I'm afraid. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Deprodding doesn't affect applicability/execution of of any CSD-criterion.But, I will be happy enough to let the AFD run and thus consequently equip us with G4, in case the need arises:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I thought if someone removed a CSD A7 or PROD then it had to go to AfD. Admittedly, I could have done A7 first, rather than PROD, but I thought it might give them a few days to prove notability. They'll now have a few days through this process, although it is a no-hoper. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for obvious reasons as above. Ajf773 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete While it is against directives to put a second PROD on an article (I have seen it done successfully however), that does not mean that when the actually debate opens we have to wait a whole 7 days to delete such an obvious case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can't challenge the notability of this person in his area Jaipur, a famous city of India. -Ashok Todawata (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a biography about a real person that does not assert notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no third party reliable sources for notability.. looks like self created article --Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pretty much per Coolabahapple's analysis, and gross failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. (non-admin closure) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coldheart Canyon[edit]

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

Uncited stub for more than 3 years Killer Moff (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This book was published in 2001 so the reviews aren't visible to Google mostly, but there were tons of them when it came out, so it easily meets WP:BKCRIT criterion #1: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." Just for instance, it was reviewed in:
- OH, THE HORROR, THE HORROR!Orlando Sentinel, The (FL) (Published as THE ORLANDO SENTINEL) - December 23, 2001
- HOLLYWOOD HORRORS - Clive Barker takes on the dead souls of showbiz in 'Coldheart Canyon'San Francisco Chronicle (CA) (Published as THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE) - December 15, 2001
- CHUTZPAH ASIDE, BARKER'S NEW BOOK IS THINCapital Times, The (Madison, WI) - December 7, 2001
- The Herald (United Kingdom): Animal instinct Herald, The/The Sunday Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) (Published as Herald and the Sunday Herald, The (Glasgow, Scotland)) - November 18, 2001
- FICTION REVIEW IN HOLLYWOOD, EVEN THE GHOSTS HAVE AN AGENT - FICTIONAL ACTORS AND LONG-DEAD SCREEN LEGENDS HAVE A PARTY AT CLIVE BARKER'S HOUSEOregonian, The (Portland, OR) - November 11, 2001
- SCARY MONSTERS, SUPER CREEPS - IN HIS COMEBACK NOVEL, CLIVE BARKER CELEBRATES DEMONS IN CLASSIC HOLLYWOOD.Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) (Published as Sun-Sentinel) - November 11, 2001
- THE YOMIURI SHIMBUN/DAILY YOMIURI: Barker tests boundaries of bizarreJapan News, The (Tokyo, Japan) (Published as Daily Yomiuri and The Yomiuri Shimbun (Tokyo, Japan)) - October 28, 2001
- Clive Barker fills 'Canyon' with secrets, dead soulsUSA TODAY (Arlington, VA) (Published as USA TODAY) - October 26, 2001
- Clive does Hollywood - Horror writer has his fun with TinseltownKansas City Star, The (MO) - October 14, 2001
- The Daily Telegraph: Crunch crunch Daily Telegraph, The/The Sunday Telegraph (London, England) (Published as Daily Telegraph, The (London, England)) - October 6, 2001
- BARKER GOES `HOLLYWOOD'Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) (Published as Rocky Mountain News (CO)) - October 5, 2001

And on, and on, and on. Another failure of before, if you ask me. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per 192.+, and if you want some online presence, here's a starred review in Publishers Weekly[12], PW's later audiobook review [13], Kirkus Reviews [14], a negative review in the Los Angeles Times[15], and Janet Maslin in The New York Times[16]. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The sources aren't in the article? WP:SOFIXIT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "Uncited stub for more than 3 years" and?, this should have been speedied as no legitimate reason given for deletion, anyhow, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with numerous useable reviews as listed above, Killer Moff, when WorldCat lists library holdings of over 1000 libraries with multiple editions thats a pretty good indicator of notableness, then entering "Coldheart Canyon clive barker book reviews" in gsearch its a nobrainer. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elgaimeddo[edit]

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

This is a particularly frustrating case. Geonames says it's "approved", but it locates, rather imprecisely, into an area of barchan dunes near the coast. Heading south from there, GMaps shows a town it calls "Ashira" (and gives, in Cyrillic, "Dzhamiya Ashira"). Looking for "Ashira" in geonames, however, gives a well called "Ashira Cun" which is nowhere near either of these, and another well named "Haashira" further down the coast. There's unquestionably a town where GMaps labels it, but what is it really called? Well, this map of water sources seems to think that it's called "Ascira", and sure enough, that name is in geonames, unverified, and it's at about the same location as El Gaimeddo (of course there's a missing space in the article name), and the imprecise, unverified location is a bit north of the town labelled on GMaps. So, are they the same place? I'm inclined to create Ascira, and delete this, but maybe they should be merged. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this place does exist, or at least used to, but I don't think we can say any more about it than that. The databases used for these places all seem to trace back to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency one, which says the same thing as Mangoe found - "El Gaimeddo" is a populated place at 10° 22' 00" N, 050° 55' 00" E, with another populated place called "Ascira" close by at 10° 22' 00" N, 050° 57' 00" E. Ascira is obviously the place called "Ashira" by Google Maps, which from satellite imagery definitely has people living there. However the database coordinates aren't terribly precise (note there is no seconds component) and Ascira isn't in the place the database thinks it is. This suggests to me that either (a) "El Gaimeddo" does exist and we just aren't looking in the right place because the coordinates are imprecise or (b) "El Gaimeddo" used to exist but doesn't any more (the database entry was last updated in 1994).
In any case, WP:NGEO says that sources such as maps which mention the subject but don't give any more information about it aren't sufficient to demonstrate notability, and that's all we've got here. Even the information we have got doesn't allow us to say with any confidence where the place is. I think we could reasonably have an article on Ascira/Ashira, as it does definitely exist and I did find some non-database mentions of it. But I don't think we can conclude that Ascira/Ashira is the same as El Gaimeddo. Hut 8.5 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Hut's work. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerford Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTADVERTISING this article has already been speedy deleted as advertising. I suggest salting it as the article creator is a SPA with a probable undeclared WP:COI. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article has been edited in line with other similar wiki pages i.e. Reiss and has been improved further. All notions of advertising have been deleted and new citations included.

Please highlight specific areas of the article that do not follow guidelines and they will be revised if appropriate.

This article should not have been set to speedy deletion previously JB17 11:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Breedon (talk • contribs) — Jessica Breedon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The main problem with this article is notability. You have made no edits outside this topic so judging by your editing pattern and your user name you seem to have a possible link with this company. Please read WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure as is required. Direct editing by editors on articles with which they have a conflict of interest including paid editors is very strongly discouraged. You may want to also read WP:NORG and also this essay that explains why just because there is a similar article on wikipedia that this article does not have an automatic right to exist here. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear on the notability side the sources are 2 partner merchant sites that sell their products, 2 references from the company's web site, 3 twitter pages, 1 linkedin page, 1 rating of their equity crowdfunding campaign where they raised £5k of a £100k target. There is no indepth coverage of the company in reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I can't find any coverage of the company online in WP:RS, and a Google site search of GQ also turns up no mention of them, despite what the company's blog reference claims. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete: An article with a variety of primary and unreliable sources. No evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing in the article doesn't speak to notability and a google news search turns up a solitary press release. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tedua[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMUSIC with the criteria of national charting albums and songs and he is signed to a notable label Sony Atlantic306 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- For serious? Clear pass of WP:BAND criterion #2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." It seems that everything the guy releases charts in Italy per FIMI, which is a recommended chart for gauging notability per WP:CHART. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Atlantic306. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has no fewer than FOURTEEN songs in the current Italian top 50 singles chart [17] and the current number two album [18]. Richard3120 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per 192.160.216.52, Atlantic306, and Richard3120. Tedua clearly passes WP:BAND. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all of the above. Article needs expansion, not deletion; and the nominator probably ignored the WP:BEFORE process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the above, as has reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:NMUSIC criterion #2. This (somewhat) meets WP:SKCRIT #3. I agree that the draft could use better sourcing, but it is need of improvement, not deletion. The deletion rationale references WP:NMUSIC, so I am surprised that #2 would have been missed. This article should never have been nominated. Please do WP:BEFORE before nominating pages for deletion. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Verones[edit]

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

References do not include substantive discussion of subject in published reliable independent sources like magazines or newspapers, or books, subject does not appear to qualify under WP:ACADEMIC (does not hold a named chair nor is identified as a University Professor/ Distinguished Professor, at least not yet). Subject's own publications and research projects are not sufficiently independent to substantiate a notability claim. Award mentioned does not itself appear to be a notable award. Being appointed an associate professor does not assure inclusion. Bindle-stiff (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rapid feedback. I am a new user in Wikipedia, can you please indicate precisely what the problem is, so I can try and fix it? Angela McLean (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Angela McLean. The nominator already detailed above the problems that ostensibly are in the article. You might want to search Wikipedia for the rules about notability of persons, i.e. WP:BIO, and more specifically for WP:ACADEMICS. The general rules are in WP:NOTABILITY. The concept of notability is a fundational one for Wikipedia so you might want to acquaint yourself with it. Additionally, articles that are biographies of living persons are under their own, rather strict, rules - for which you may want to look up WP:BLP. Happy editing, and take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one high-citation paper ("Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment"), in which she is listed as 16th out of 17 co-authors, not enough for WP:PROF#C1. #C2 explicitly excludes student awards, such as her best-dissertation award. The journal she edits is too new for notability via #C8, and anyway she is just one of many editorial board members, not editor-in-chief. So overall my impression is that although she is on a successful academic career track, it is WP:TOOSOON for her to have accumulated enough impact for notability through her scholarly work. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Looker[edit]

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

I do not believe that this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. She is a councillor in the City of York Council but I don't believe she has any other claims to notability. This article was created two weeks ago, and I am unimpressed that the article's creator couldn't be bothered to provide decent references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not yet notable per WP:NPOL or WP:BIO. Local councillors don't normally get an article in Wikipedia, unless there's substantial secondary coverage of them in WP:RS, and all I can see is few of the usual mentions in local press that you'd expect to see for the opposition leader of a city council in the UK. I've rescued the broken references, which were pasted in (along with the vastly over-detailed electoral results) from other articles. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above comments by The Mighty Glen. Who writes such text? ("...After her children were old enough to go to school, Looker started thinking about how she would make a career for herself...") -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. York is not in the narrow range of internationally prominent global cities where we accept the city councillors as automatically passing WP:NPOL — so her ability to qualify for an article depends entirely on being shown as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. And it's one of those English cities where the mayoralty automatically rotates every year so that everybody on council gets a turn, so she doesn't get an automatic free pass over our notability standards for mayors, either. And yeah, the article reads like it was written by a relative of hers, to boot. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not yet established Dreamspy (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently the longest serving councillor on City of York Council, elected in 1995 and stepping down next year, a member of North Yorkshire County Council for 10 years before that and a former Lord Mayor of York. A fine public servant but with no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chabot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. First nomination ended with no consensus, but the arguments for keep are not in line with notability guidelines or unconvincing in general. Kurykh (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a prominent-enough political activist, if nothing else. Notability is not inherited, so "Conservative Move" alone cannot qualify him, but there's enough notability about Chabot himself out there, in relation mostly to the organization, that makes him eligible as a subject for a Wikipedia article, e.g. here, here, or here. Chabot seems to have had other notable, political activities, as well, that satisfy WP:NPOL. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clear case. Meets GNG. See e.g. Press-Enterprise profile, Los Angeles Times profile, McKinney Courier-Gazette interview, The Sun, Texas Monthly, and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both arguments above. -- Anatoliatheo (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Il Muto[edit]

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

A seemingly non-notable fictional opera. Has one primary source in the lead and the rest is an unsourced, in-universe attempt to reconstruct it. WP:BEFORE turned up mostly YouTube clips and lyrics. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be changed to a Redirect to the specific opera in whose body it belongs. There, if needed, the details provided here can be posted up. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)#Act I (or The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)), which is the opera it is from. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)#Act I - non-notable, but plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although paid editors are problematic, if the sources support inclusion and consensus here is that they do, the page should be kept. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Shabtai[edit]

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

Highly promotional. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article states facts and brings plenty of reliable sources to back them up. Successful businessman. No clear reason for deletion--Geewhiz (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying, if somebody is successful businessmen, they can get an article. I run a very successful software consultancy, so I'm good for an article, is that your rationale. scope_creep (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a list of 10 or so articles in reliable sources where your successes are documented and I will write the article for you.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, if he does have sufficient coverage it will stay, I guess. See what happens. scope_creep (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is simply a businessman with a social life and some philanthropy, and a few sources confirm this; the rest are lame irrelevancies. It does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO and smells of WP:PROMO. (I'm not aware of criteria specifically for businessmen.) -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not everyone gets write-ups in Forbes, Globes and Haaretz. Not everyone sells companies for $500 million. Not everyone has societies at Yale named for them. By the way, if you are really hot on deleting articles, there are zillions of them about space creatures and loads of one-line articles about people who play golf in their free time and cartoon characters that are crying for attention.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References 10, and 11 are dead. Both of the subjects on the sources for his companies, specifically IPO's. Doing a search the Viber sell off in Globes, mentiones the subject by name, the second one is similar name mention for the IPO. The Forbes is low quality, Richest in the country article Clickbait article. What is there is click and IPO's. scope_creep (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Haaretz news article reads like a puff piece, written by a member of his own Yale society. scope_creep (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessments of Haaretz and Forbes are your own subjective view. They are reliable sources on Wikipedia. As I mentioned above, there is much to do to improve this encyclopedia and going around deleting articles about people who have more money than you is a waste of everyone's time--Geewhiz (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geewhiz, you just made a totally irrelevant remark that constitutes a personal attack against a fellow contributor. Wikipedia does not care whether a person has made lots of money or not; the criteria for having an article about a person in Wikipedia do not include "size of fortune". You must be thinking of something else entirely. And you have no right (in fact, you are in breach of your obligations to be be civil and to assume good faith of other editors) to be accusing others of having some kind of an agenda here. This is more serious than the question about having an article up about someone. Do you realize this? -The Gnome (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not realize this. The remarks - like yours below - were just a "general observation." If you took them personally, please forgive me. At the same time, I think your tone in working to delete this article is overly aggressive. Still, I am always glad to know that there are people who take Wikipedia seriously.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say my tone is "aggressive" but aggressive against whom? I'm not attacking anyone, nor anyone's ideas. I merely express my views. (See full text of my opinion above.) I have no agenda here. You should refrain from presuming "agendas", especially without anything on which to base them, e.g. an editor's record of "aggressiveness" or an "agenda". This is honest, friendly advice but also Wikipedia policy. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geewhiz I have no "hotness" for deleting articles from Wikipedia. I simply offer a small assistance in keeping article creation within the rules of the house. As to your argument about "zillions" of other unworthy articles (is that more than fifteen?), then, by all means, point them out here, as Articles for Deletion. Wikipedia does not have notability guidelines specifically for businessmen or entrepreneurs. Therefore, the general notability rules about living persons apply. The article's subject might be extremely successful and rich, but seemingly does not qualify for an article. That's all there is to it, as far as I'm concerned. Take care. -The Gnome (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur with Geewhiz, Shabtai is definitely notable figure and the sources are more than sufficient. Tzahy (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply to Geewhiz. Having already went to Reliable Source noticeboard to ask about Forbes recently, I have a very good understanding of what they are. The Globes entries are routine business news, and are not about him specifically. Of the 18 on the article, about 13 or 14 are related to his business. One of them is his wedding video, ref 4, and is non RS. Ref 18 is not even causily linked, it is some other person, who is a member of the society. Ref 9 is another video on vimeo, non RS. Ref 18 is the front page of the FIDF, doesn't mention him at all, so non RS. 14 is dead. 13 is dead. Ref 12 is about Viber being sold, and is a name drop only. Ref 10 doesnt detail anything about him.

The article completly breaks WP:NOTADVOCATE. The practice in Wikipedia which has been consistent, is to delete, when the article is so extensively promotional that the promotionalism cannot be removed without extensive rewriting, when the work needing to be rewritten goes beyond the normal editing, compared with the usual removing of a sentence here or there. The tone of the article is clearly promotional, and a complete rewrite would be needed. The article was submitted by an undeclared paid editor. scope_creep (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The article was submitted by an undeclared paid editor." This is becoming truly a scourge on Wikipedia. Non-paid volunteers will be forced to devote more and more time in dealing with whatever garbage paid editors place on here; this means volunteers spending less time on Wikipedia articles, which in turn means a deterioration in the quality of Wikipedia. Professionals usually defeat amateurs; money usually defeats no-money. Just a general observation. -The Gnome (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, checks out in sources. I don't know what the secret handshake society he runs is all about, but it's sourced so meh. As for "The practice in Wikipedia which has been consistent, is to delete...." - this is not correct. WP:DP says "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it." WP:BLPDEL says "Page deletion is normally a last resort" and is more geared for things like "Joe Blow is a fraudster, drug dealer and suspected member of Britain First. He is believed to be behind a major heroin trafficking operation and organisation of plots of blow up properties owned by British Muslims. He has yet to be convicted and charged of any crime." (with citations to The Sun and the Daily Mirror) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage of his life and activities over the decades far above the point where we consider deletion. Was there any news coverage when you sold your house? Here's the New York times in 2011, " In the midst of a flurry of activity at the very high end of the market over the last few weeks comes a contract signing, finally, on 870 Park Avenue, a nearly 12,000-square-foot town house that Benny Shabtai, an Israeli businessman who spent decades leading the watchmaker Raymond Weil's distribution team in the United States, put on the market seven years ago. The contract signing came after the listing changed hands among three of the city's top-selling brokers, undergoing a series of price changes that took the original $23 million asking price in 2004 to a high of $33 million in 2008, to the last asking price of $24.5 million. Streeteasy.com showed that the contract had been signed on May 13. The buyer will be getting a four-story mansion -- the facade was designed by Robert A. M. Stern -- with six bedrooms, six baths, a four-passenger elevator and a 1,150-square-foot office with a separate Park Avenue entrance....". Do you invest in tech startups? Shabtai does, here's the Wall Street Journal in 2000 Need $100,000? A Venture Capitalist May Be Living Just Down the Hall "NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Like other hardchargers who bankroll new companies, Peter Venech works 15-hour days scouring the high-tech landscape for the next Yahoo! or Amazon.com. But he has distractions. Term papers, for one thing.... 'I like their vision. I like their energy,' says Benny Shabtai, president of Raymond Weil USA, New York, a distributor of Swiss watches. Mr. Shabtai, who met Messrs. Venech and Stern through a campus social club... He has run large corporations, he's rich he invests, he donates, the press covers him... This keep' is a slam dunk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small remark: You wrote that Shabtai "has run large corporations, he's rich, he invests, he donates, the press covers him." I'd think that out of those five qualifiers, only one, the latter, counts in Wikipedia as far as notability is concerned. The others might as well not exist. -The Gnome (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Meg One[edit]

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

Pretty much all plot, a little OR, a few primary sources, largely unsourced, and no indication of real world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. When you search for the article and you get there, there isn't any there there. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Megacities in Judge Dredd. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional cruft. Megacities in Judge Dredd is equally as bad as this one in terms of non-notability. Even if merged, it will likely be deleted soon anyway._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send it to Wikia.Theredproject (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consnsus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Vard[edit]

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

Not a notable model. Appearing on the cover of "Maxim Thailand" doesn't meet GNG or any other SNG, and there's nothing else apart from social media. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject may or not be notable as a model, but she has been the subject of media coverage for several years, for reasons ranging from her speaking out against the Phuket police to social criticism of her online videos.[19][20][21][22][23][24] --Paul_012 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 07:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is simply promoting a supposedly local celebrity, supported by sources such as the subject's facebook page, plus puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NMODEL would seem to expect significant coverage on notable mainstream media. Much of the coverage available seems to relate to limited event/events (allegations of kidnapping threats/etc). That we had an "early life" sub-section (for a subject 19 years-of-age) would in itself suggest perhaps that WP:TOOSOON applies. Guliolopez (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPoint party[edit]

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

Not a notable concept. There's gossip-style coverage about a viral tweet about a party, and that's about it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's perfectly notable. Multiple reliable sources from different publications attest to its notability. Additionally, the viral nature of the story happened only in January of this year, so I would argue for its inclusion, as it's likely to gain more publicity. 'Gossip style' coverage is entirely a subjective judgement, which I think should be kept out of this discussion, which should only focus on the Notability guidelines, which I would argue this subject passes given the number of reliable sources. --Jwslubbock (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 07:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are several sources, but they are either not about the party (the BBC article) or merely regurgitate the same few tweets. I don't think we're at WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability. Wikipedia's criteria for notability do no rest on potential "future notability"; hence, WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. " after images of one event went viral on Twitter." pretty much says it. There needs to be much more substantial content. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo (newspaper)[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP user, reason given was “Issues with this include notability, self-promotional, defunct entity, content not suitable for an encyclopedia, ” Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep defunct is not a valid reason for deletion. In its lifetime it won a large number of awards including 34 from the National Newspaper Association,55 Scholastic Press Forum awards since 1999; and the Suburban Newspapers Association's award for Best Young People's Coverage in both 2002 and 2005, as well as its feature writing award in 2007. Atlantic306 (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with the Youth_Journalism_International entry. The Tattoo stub content really should really be part of the Youth_Journalism_International entry since YJI seems to be the successor organization and it's entry if judged by itself would likely qualify for deletion. Together I believe that they are worthy and should be included, separately not so much.

Added March 14. I will try to carve out some time to add the Tattoo information to the Youth Journalism entry over the weekend. I'd hate to see these deleted, but either of these standing alone are incomplete and delete worthy. The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t really make sense. Deleting and merging are kind of mutually exclusive options. (Also please make new remarks at the bottom, I’ve moved this one for you.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 07:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am currently discussing the founder's article. I don't believe it should be merged with Youth Journalism International because that also doesn't meet notability retirements i.e. the only people who care about Youth Journalism International is Youth Journalism International according to its citation list. As for this article, its not properly sourced and ticks off a lot of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. CamdenEric (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Bay[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since June 2009 and nominated for merger in November 2017, though there is little to be merged. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Practically no notability on its own, as a subject. -The Gnome (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fiction-cruft, fails WP:NOTPLOT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Redirect to SeaChange as it is the fictional setting of a 39 episode Australian Television show. Failing that, delete~~ --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however, I would not be opposed to (weak) redirecting to SeaChange as it is the fictional setting of a 39 episode Australian Television show. I agree with the below that it is probably too generic, but still think it might have a possibility (maybe under a different title). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name is a little too generic for a redirect methinks. Are there really no IRL places named this?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as name is too generic for redirect. --Theredproject (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winoka[edit]

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

All plot, unreferenced since February 2010, and no indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. When you search for the article and you get there, there isn't any there there. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fiction-cruft, fails WP:NOTPLOT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I would say to redirect to the television show, however, it is only mentioned in a template at the bottom and not in the actual article itself. With that said, I would not be opposed to it being redirected to List of Little House on the Prairie locations, as it is listed there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Megacities in Judge Dredd. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-City Two[edit]

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

All plot, no indication of real-world notability. All sources are primary. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Feels very crufty. SportingFlyer talk 06:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Megacities in Judge Dredd per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional cruft. Megacities in Judge Dredd is equally as bad as this one in terms of non-notability. Even if merged, it will likely be deleted soon anyway._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I love judge Dredd, but we don't need an article about every mega city! Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Megacities in Judge Dredd per Andrew D (of course, leaving a redirect behind). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Taylor (actor)[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards / categories are not significant; "Grabby Awards Wall of Fame" does not qualify. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:PORNBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the notability guidelines for pornographic actors. I begin to think this might be our most violated guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards ,fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Rockland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Awards / categories are not significant. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO.

First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2010, based on the arguments such as "the awards meet PORNBIO". However, PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. For example, the awards listed no longer qualify under it. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:PORNBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is one group we have a disproprotionately large number of articles on it is pornographic actors. Sportspeople are another big problem, but pornographic actors are much more out of line with actual substantial and meaningful coverage of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG with no references except IMDb Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards ,fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talvin DeMachio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO.

First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2010, based on the arguments such as "Grabby and Hooky awards now adequately sourced". However, PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. For example, the awards listed no longer qualify under it. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:PORNBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards ,fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toptal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an freelance marketplace. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP self-promotion, and routine notices. First AfD closed as "No consensus"; sources in the article or presented at the AfD are not compelling. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created and extensively edited by two SPAs. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure you're going to get a consensus here where the last one failed, but after review all of the sources appear run of the mill businessy to me. SportingFlyer talk 06:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles created by single-purpose accounts are more often than not prime candidates for deletion. When will they ever learn?-The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the previous closer listed the close as a "No Consensus" with reasoning of No clear agreement on the subjective question of whether the sources provided demonstrate notability, or just another run-of-the-mill company, I disagree with this reasoning. The article was cleaned up somewhat during the previous AfD and more than one editor (including me) pointed out a number of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not one editor questioned the suitability of the sources. Previously, the article was promotional but while there are still a couple of phrases in the article that I believe could easily be removed with little impact to the article, it does not have the same problems as previously. In the previous AfD, I noted the following: Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten to remove promotional tone but the topic does appear to be notable. There are numerous independent references available such as this Huffington post interview with a female coder in Nepal, or this article about Toptal providing talent to develop an app for the Cleveland Cavaliers, or the Chicago Tribune interview with a freelance coder, or this interview with Evil Angel using Toptal. It may not be a brilliant article but it meets the criteria and therefore should be kept. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. interviews with the subject of the article or a closely associated person are not RSs for notability , because they're not 3rd party--they are usually instigated by PR, and they're not independent, because the interviewee cana say what they might please. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rolling pin#Types of rolling pins. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chakla[edit]

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

Dictionary definition, and the two sources, which are to cookbooks, also do not go beyond dicdefs. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided the article can be better sourced.TH1980 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolling pin#Types of rolling pins, which already seems to contain all the information here, with better context. PWilkinson (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolling pin#Types of rolling pins. As PWilkinson said, it does indeed contain all the relevant information. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolling pin#Types of rolling pins per above. PhilKnight (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qaydarweylood[edit]

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

Another "locality", which seems to perhaps have some interesting topography, but there's no "town" there. I couldn't find anything else but mirrors and the usual clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's in Geonames as Qaydar Weylood, but nothing found in searches there either. SportingFlyer talk 06:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, as utterly failing criteria. No 'there' there. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This town is not here, and it is not there. :) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let's hope someone takes the initiative to clean it up... J04n(talk page) 13:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Parker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm reviewing some of my first AfD discussions. This article was kept in 2007 on the basis that her positions implied notability ; by our current standards, State Auditor and member of a state Public Service Commission are far from that. I can find nothing substantial inGoogle New, except about other people by the same name. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral She doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, but there's a chance she passes WP:GNG due to the fact she was the first woman to be nominated for Senate in Alabama (she lost to Jeff Sessions.) The article glosses over this and I have no opinion on whether the sources show notability: basically happy either way as it's difficult to remove significant coverage from trivial political coverage here. [25] [26] [27] and gets a mention on pg. 168 of the book Alabama Getaway: The Political Imaginary and the Heart of Dixie and publicly endorsed Clinton in 2007. [28] [29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. None of the sources here are even remotely acceptable (two primary sources and a Blogspot blog, the end), and the article is written too much like a bulletpointed résumé rather than a proper encyclopedia article — and while there are certainly things here that might make her eligible to have an article if she could be shown to actually clear WP:GNG, there's nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to clear GNG. And passing GNG is a matter of showing that enough sourcing to clear GNG exists, not of simply theorizing that enough sourcing to clear GNG might exist. So I'd be willing to reconsider this if there were much, much better evidence of a GNG pass — but the sourcing here ain't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Auditor and Public Service Commissioner are both statewide elected offices in Alabama. Parker recieved over 500,000 votes in her victories in those elections. Is it really the case that offices like that do not pass NPOL/POLOUTCOMES? The language of NPOL/POLOUTCOMES seems to suggest that those offices would be sufficent to show an individual is a suitable subject for an article. Newspapers.com results suggest substantial coverage of Parker, if anyone is interested in expanding the article[30]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Itseems she was just one of the members of that commission. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the PSC has three members, a president and two commissioners. Parker was one of the two. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a WP:NPOL grey area, but WP:POLOUTCOMES discusses local politicians whose offices are not generally notable. I think that's definitely the case here, as lots of states have several minor statewide elected positions. I'd argue this one is as well. However, she was a losing candidate in a national race (assuming we define U.S. Senate as national) and there's a very good chance she passes WP:GNG without needing the WP:NPOL boost. SportingFlyer talk 04:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is a grey area and I disagree that auditor is a minor or non-notable state-level position. That said, in Alabama I think the progression for state elected positions is: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, and PSC (3 positions). Other state positions include Board of Education (multiple positions), Chief Justice, Associate Justice (multiple positions), and Appeals Court Justices (multiple positions). I would agree that members of the BoE and Appeals Court are not presumed to be notable on the basis of their election. I think I would agree that members of the PSC are not presumed to be notable, in most states being an elected leader of the utilities district would not confer the presumption of notability. The PSC may be an exception, given how small the commission is, but an Alabama-specific exception seems silly. I generally think commissioners of a states chief industries can be presumed to have multiple in-depth reliable sources and thus be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but in some states there are commissioners of many industries, so again it would be complicated to have state-specific rules. The other six positions seem quite significant to me, with auditor as having the weakest case. Even so, in a state with an appointed auditor, the position requires a high level of political power as it is one of the highest patronage appointments available to the governor. In a state with an elected auditor, the case seems obvious to me, as in this case.

The issue here is that while it is trivial to show GNG (for example: Kitchen, Sebastioan. PSC's Parker decides not to run for District 5 seat. The Montgomery Adviser (Montgomery, Alabama) 31 Dec 2009, page 17), it is useful to have the SNG include state auditors as in practice SNG trumps GNG for politicians whose media coverage is limited only to their routine political activities. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State auditor is one of the constitutional statewide elected offices in Alabama: Article V. Executive Department. Section 1. "The Executive Department shall consist of a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, and Attorney General, who shall be chosen by the electors of the State, at the time and places at which they shall vote for Representatives.", clearly satisfying WP:NPOL #1 "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". 24.151.116.12 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for clean up. As she was the State auditor, passing WP:NPOL #1 See this (note, while recognizing this is a primary source, if there is a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL then all is needed is official confirmation the subject holds the position). However, as Bearcat says, the existing sources are quite problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tag for sourcing, expansion. Here [31] is material on her involvement with a campaign to put an tax measure on the ballot as a referendum in 2009/10 in a reliable looking university press book Alabama Getaway: The Political Imaginary and the Heart of Dixie. Here [32] is a mention of an old-time sexist attack on her during her Senate campaign that makes me think that campaign may have gotten SIGCOV. (The South and America Since World War II, Oxford University Press). So I punched "Susan Parker" + Alabama into a proquest news archive search and did not do more than glance at the first page of hits - there are hundreds, they seem to indicate a high probability that there is material for an interesting article on her. I think the best thing to do is to keep it and home for an editor with the time and skill to improve it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AstroLabs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable co-working space. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP related to launch publicity, and routine notices. First AfD closed as "No consensus"; sources in the article or presented at the AfD are not compelling. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is this really worth hashing over again less than a year after the last exercise? What has changed in the last 10 months that would change the outcome here? ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion closed as "no consensus", so a new nomination is entirely appropriate. The company is still non notable (IMO), hence the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unless there's a new development, we're unlikely to reach a consensus this time either. These borderline cases with lengthy discussion and no clear conclusion consume a lot of the community's time and good-will. What is the potential benefit of doing this again? ~Kvng (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed is that no new indications of notability have been uncovered since the last AfD. "No consensus" closures are not binding, so it's perfectly reasonable to bring the topic to AfD again. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the potential benefit of doing this again? ~Kvng (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess one potential benefit is that doing it a second time means we won't need to do it a third :( ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep Has RS coverage. Notable enough. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 15:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per evidence of notability in citations in article and identified by Northamerica1000. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are good and show notability. From the sources - the hub is the most in demand real estate for tech companies in Dubai, and the first tech hub partnership with Google in Dubai. Passes WP:GNG. There are other more recent reliable sources that aren't as notable but nonetheless show breadth and depth of coverage. [[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]].

Keep – Meets the GNG per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 13:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Todawata[edit]

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

Not notable. Deleted by Jimfbleak on 12 February and recreated a couple of days ago using jatland.com as a source. That site is a dreadful open wiki and I actually thought it was blacklisted. There appear to be no reliable sources that support notability. Sitush (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as lacking any notability whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unable to find any reliable, secondary sources. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source - http://www.jatmahasabha.in/p/blog-page_21.html , you can see the name Todawata in the list of major Gotras of the Jat Community in India. -Ashok Todawata (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caste-affiliated websites are not reliable sources. Anyone can create them and say whatever they wish, including making the very basic claim that some name or another is indeed a caste. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Mahendra Singh Arya, Dharmpal Singh Dudee, Kishan Singh Faujdar & Vijendra Singh Narwar also mentioned about the Todawata clan in thier book named: Ādhunik Jat Itihasa (The modern history of Jats), Agra 1998, p. 249 Ashok Todawata (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O.S.Tugania : Jat Samuday ke Pramukh Adhar Bindu, page no. 41, s.n. 980 - is another reliable source. -Ashok Todawata (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those, too, are caste-affiliated sources, and the Arya/Dudee etc book is basically pseudo-history. Furthermore, it is not enough that they are mentioned. Sources need to discuss them, not just give a passing comment. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Samuday ke Pramukh Adhar Bindu and Ādhunik Jat Itihasa (The modern history of Jats) both are written by reputed authors. O.S.Tugania, Dr Mahendra Singh Arya, Dharmpal Singh Dudee, Kishan Singh Faujdar & Vijendra Singh Narwar are notable historians of India. -Ashok Todawata (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really? I ŧhought they were Jats, loved by Jats because of their puffery etc (they're all over the jatland website), and dismissed by everyone else. Can you find any non-Jats who cite their efforts? - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to comment that the efforts above to present evidence for notability actually weaken the case for notability. -The Gnome (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as per WP:DNB. -Ashok Todawata (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:DBN is a policy on how to treat newcomers to Wikipedia, not a policy or advice on why an article should be kept or deleted. Sorry. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can only see a handful of blogs and books written by members from within the clan. No reliable sources whatsoever. MT Train^Talk 06:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see the required sourcing to support this article at this time.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reliable source is here and see this clan name in the given list. This source is from the official website of Jat Mahasabha, an article on this wiki. Jat Mahasabha is an organisation of Jats, the official website of this organisation you can see here - Jat_Mahasabha#External_links. - Ashok Todawata (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the list of Todawata peoples in the news:

Bhaskar News Link 1
Bhaskar News Link 2 Person name: Madan Lal Todawata
Bhaskar News Link 3 Person name: Sarpanch Babulal Todawata

For more news sources go here. - Ashok Todawata (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are indulging in full-blown original research to deduce that a surname automatically equates to a clan.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per all above and nom.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Todawata is not only a surname, it is a Jat clan (Gotra) which is found in Indian state Rajasthan. Do whatever you want but this is truth. The sources are discussed in this page and which is probably not enough according to you. If you agree with above sources then keep this page. - Ashok Todawata^Talk 13:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The clans have history associated with them. I do not understand what we are going to achieve by deleting these clan histories. We have to expand their histories to enhance knowledge bank. If some reliable source does not write about them it does not mean the clan is not reliable. Some editors have inherent bias which is unfortunate. I am strongly in favour of keeping not only articles on Jat clans but all other ethnic groups are clans world over. burdak (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? WP:GNG relies on verifiability and that in turn pretty much always means reliable sources. Your position that this should be kept even though the subject is not mentioned in reliable sources is simply untenable. What are we supposed to say about it? - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly were you canvassed to this discussion?~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here on the Jatland wiki by the article creator. I can understand that the creator is new here and will not be aware of our attitude to canvassing but LRBurdak (talk · contribs) should know better. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all above evidences are enough for notability. Ashok Todawata^Talk 15:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaeval Combat Society[edit]

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

A WP:ADVOCACY page on an unremarkable group of about 70 members. Does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is hyper-local, WP:SPIP, and / or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements and is only mentioned in local media outlets. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Kudos to the enthusiasts, thumbs down for the article. Possibly promotional text. -The Gnome (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shame to say this since this is probably a major group for the area of Mediaeval Combat reenactment, and it' a worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately very few if any local/regional clubs will ever have valid Wikipedia articles because of the strict guidelines on notability. This one is no exception, there simply isn't anywhere close to the level of secondary sourcing needed to support an article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, as notability not established. Dreamspy (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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