< 13 March	15 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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Borgia Egan[edit]

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

No evidence of sufficient notability to satisfy WP:GNG. Originally created as a Template file and moved to Draft . Draft then moved directly to main-space by author without review. Should probably go back to Draft to see if adquate sourcing could be found. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep — if draftifying is an acceptable outcome, then this shouldn't be at AfD. Also appears to pass WP:PROF#C6 as the founder and first president of a university. XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not cleanup, though there are obvious problems with the article (half the references are to other Wikipedia articles). Founding Mercyhurst University is a clear claim of notability, and there are some references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somebody might want to put a welcome and how-to-write-your-first-article on this apparently new editor's talk page. I'd do it myself but sometimes new users are confused by the anonymous IP signature. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, formatting can use improvement but Egan is clearly notable per WP:PROF#C6. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some TLC, but is notable per WP:PROF#C6. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:26, 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. Sandstein 10:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Migrants sponsored banking (MSB) system: NRB bank for Bangladesh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY. The article reads like an essay or an advertisement. It appears whatever bank hasn't opened yet. The article is so muddled it is hard to tell. WP:TNT seems like the only recourse. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So a month after moving some sneaky bugger recreates the redirect as one big essay .... how in gods name has this lasted for 4 years ? .... Delete per NOTESSAY. –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTWHITEPAPER if that was a thing, but WP:NOTESSAY will do. Unencyclopedic. talk to !dave 13:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NotEssay. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:27, 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. SpinningSpark 10:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minolta Maxxum 9000[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a listing of every product which has been offered for sale. Lots of features are listed, but references to satisfy WP:N are lacking. Edison (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is well-sourced and many articles link to it. The only people who will find the article are those that are looking for it and they will be pleased to find it. People who aren't looking for it won't find it, and if they do they can costlessly ignore it. If Wikipedia is to be a repository of knowledge perhaps we should be more tolerant of articles about topics we don't care about. I, for one, would not miss all articles on sports, sports figures, sports contests such as the Olympics or the Super Bowl, anything to do with popular music, and I could go on. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Well-sourced"? There are literally only two sources at all, one of which is an online user's manual and the other a link to ANOTHER wiki. There's not even the faintest hint that anyone has paid any attention to this specific model of camera. And the "article" itself is simply a bunch of bullet-pointed features, making it indistinguishable from a sales brochure. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The data appear accurate and are from an authoritative source. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to make a WP:OSE argument here, but I'm curious as to why this fails WP:N when other similar camera models on the page have articles but have not been nominated for deletion? A couple at a short glance appear to be sourced better, is there truly no way this article can pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 04:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make a WP:OSE argument here... Except that you, literally, just did.--Calton | Talk 11:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? I didn't even cast a vote, and I am curious as to why the nominator thought this particular model should be nominated without including other similar models in an AfD as well. SportingFlyer talk 00:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked (and I am not the nominator) a multiple AFD has been frowned upon. articles that all have the same problem can be grouped but as soon as someone adds one or two the Wikilaywers stretch their typing fingers to begin with "it is now too broad and confusing. WP:OTHERSTUFF has also become frowned upon because sourcing (to advance notability on an AFD) and consensus determines inclusion. Suggesting that "other stuff exists" appears to be an argument that notability can be transferred or inherited. I am going to place this on my user page: There is NO automatic or inherited notability on Wikipedia.. Otr500 (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar with multiple AfDs, but I was curious - while this article seems currently undersourced, it also is notable and I was curious if this were a starting point for the other camera models, if there was a particular reason why the other camera models passed WP:GNG and this one did not, or if this was the "starter article" to see if there was enough of a consensus to start culling the product models. SportingFlyer talk 04:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is in line with very numerous articles on cameras. This particular model is a notable step in the history of Minolta. I would agree that this is not one of the best articles on Wikipedia, but the reaction to this should be to improve the article, not delete it. Deletion has to improve the encyclopedia, typically by pruning articles that are controversial, libelous, slanted or misinformative; I cannot fathom how any of these criteria could apply to this article. Also, this article exists in three other wikipedias, and has in particular a wealth of information on de: that we could simpy translate for a start. Rama (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot fathom how any of these criteria could apply to this article Since not a single one of those particular criteria were brought up, that's a faintly ridiculous argument.

Actually, it isn't a ridiculous argument; quite the opposite. If an article doesn't fail these important criteria, then the whole Afd hangs on "Notability", which is a criterion appropriate for dead tree media, but not WP. WP does not face the same resource constraints that writing on wood fibres does, and WP serves many highly specialized communities of interest. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This particular model is a notable step in the history of Minolta. Prove it. --Calton | Talk 11:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously, adding a Blogspot, a Weebly, and a ".info" site as external links? --Calton | Talk 11:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, do tone it down a notch, will you? 1) Well why do you think there is anything hurtful to Wikipedia in the existence of this article? your sole argument is "indistinguishable from a sales brochure", you really think this is a cunning ploy to advertise a 30-year old product by a defunct company? And if all you are unhappy about is the present state of the article, well improve it. 2) The Minolta 9000 was the first auto-focus professional SLR, if that's not a stepping stone in the history of photography for you I don't know what is. This is stated in the lead of the article. Rama (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, here is a NYT article about it - "Camera; New 35-Milimeter for Professionals" and here is a 1986 NYT review of the Canon T90 that refers to the 9000 as "revolutionary", here in an article 70 years of Minolta, the editor of photoclubalpha.com states "It remains a benchmark design.", and the Minolta Users Group reproduces a review in the Australian Photography magazine of February 1986 here. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not happy with the article's current sourcing, but I believe the sources found by Coolabahapple get this past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That there are "other like articles is NEVER a good reason to !vote keep. However: Notability is a reason to keep an article and not the poor shape of an article or the lack of sources on the article. If anyone actually thinks this article is well sourced please ping me so we can study some policies and guidelines. This camera is notable. The Maxxum 9000 was far more advanced than the 7000. The cost for a camera, battery pack, two lens, accessory motor, special back for bracketing, and camera bag was close to $1300.00. This did not include an optional winder. Fourteen lenses between the 9000 and the 7000 and most can be interchanged. The camera has the distinction of a first of a kind auto-focus and has a 1/12,000th of a second minimum shutter speed. These cameras can still be bought on ebay and Amazon for around a 100 bucks or close to $300.00 refurbished. Camera review. Otr500 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. major product, with lots of potential review sources,and lasting interest. We should merge or delete minor variations, but tnot the principal models. The NYT refs are sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 22 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bischoff[edit]

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

Seems to be an interesting artist, but fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. I don't think being a project coordinator at a gallery is enough to warrant WP:N. A little too much like a resume/portfolio. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was on the fence for this, but looking at the references, I think she is passing WP:CREATIVE, since there are quite enough reviews of her works in the local and national press. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bischoff's work "Rereading Room" was recently purchased by the Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery. Being part of a gallery's collection warrants her WP:CREATIVE status. (Krys.ro (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The Belkin is not a museum, it is a university gallery. WP:Creative says "multiple museum notable collections" or something like that... Please also read the CBC source which describes the article subject as an employee of the Belkin gallery. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uh, no, WP:CREATIVE does not preclude galleries, whether part of a university, as your above statement implies, no. 4d says "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable(my emphasis) galleries or museums." Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Krys.ro's user page suggests they work at the Helen Belkin Art Gallery, therefore has an undisclosed WP:COI. Doesn't invalidate the users comment though. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree that Krys.ro should declare any affiliations with the subject. Since they're new, they may not be aware of the issues with WP:COI. It's easy to create a COI statement and also to tag the talk page of the article with your affiliations. If you need help, feel free to ask any of us. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Arthistorian1977. There's just enough coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider the sources given to be WP:RS?104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I am very new to editing with Wikipedia, and I was not aware of the COI. I hope this does not discredit the artist in any way. My intent was not to promote the gallery, only speaking from first hand knowledge. (Krys.ro (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This is a 26 year old artist. If you look at the sources, the first is her dealer, and it is not until half way down the list that I see a Vancouver Sun article on her and her work that is an actual independent reliable source. The rest is puffery. To top it off, there is a CBC source where the artist herself declares a desire to improve articles on women artists in Wikipedia. What does that source have to do with this artist, who is also an employee of the Belkin gallery cited above as a buyer of her work? Yes Wikipedia needs more articles on women artists... but no, Wikipedia does not need to bend the notability rules applied to everyone (as is argued above) to achieve that. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way but I want to push back on a few points in this discussion: 1) The Belkin is a major university art gallery. With the exception of U of Toronto, in Canada they don’t have University Museums, they often use the word Gallery. The Belkin is somewhere in the zone in between the Berkeley Art Museum and the Philadelphia ICA or MIT List. They present major exhibitions and have a permanent collection. Their director has been the curator for the Canadian pavilion at Venice. 2) Age is not directly relevant. It is indirectly relevant because it determines how long they have had to establish a track record of notable exhibitions awards and reviews. Honest question: I wonder if being young is cited more frequently in articles about women than articles about men? (citation needed, but an interesting research question!) 3) I personally think COI is important, but I notice that on several other AfDs about men that are currently up for discussion, I have seen editors dismiss COI, and/or they simply do not acknowledge it at all. In this case, I do believe the editor that they are new and didn’t understand the mechanisms. 4) Having a role in organizing gender gap editathons does not preclude notability. I know of a dozen people with Wikipedia pages whose notability is independent/antecedent to their activity as organizers of editathons (myself included). I also know another dozen whose notability arises from their Wikipedia work. However uncomfortable it is for some in the community to negotiate, it’s just another piece of information. In this case I think the question hinges on whether the Belkin collection and The Vancouver Sun piece (which is a feature on her work, and takes the work very seriously). I note that the Wikipedia article about the The Vancouver Sun says it has the largest newsroom in the city, so it is the newspaper of record. The other reviews, and exhibitions are important to establishing the contours of her work, but aren't core to the notability question. I could go either way, the Belkin acquisition is significant, but it might just be a bit TOOSOON.--Theredproject (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I usually agree strongly with your critiques, however... Speaking as a Canadian.. The Belkin is not that big of a deal. It just ain't. Although you are right, they do have a small permanent collection. I did not even know that until now, as you mentioned it. It's a bit moot here though, since the article subject works at the gallery and had her work bought by them. Also, the idea that "in Canada they don’t have University Museums, they often use the word Gallery." Is just hopeful nonsense. Is this a possible Museum/gallery? What about this one, did they mean museum? 104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Multiple, significant, pieces of coverage in independent, reliable, third party sources and her work passes point 4 of the SNG. The arguments against keeping are not policy based (participation in editathons, COI of a !voter, age) or factually mistaken (status of the Belkin gallery). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DO you mean sources like Theory Boner Magazine, used in the article?104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG & WP:CREATIVE; sufficient sourcing that establishes stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CREATIVE is met?104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. on balance, based on Theredproject's analysis. We usually insist on works, not work in a major collection; we usually expect more than a newspaper article as critical sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i see there is a wparticle on Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery, could there be a merge to there with a paragraph or 2 on Bischoff untill she is more widely recognised/ her works are picked up by other galleries/museums/institutions? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added Canadian Art article, Edmonton Journal article, and reference to RBC Artist Development Award, then deleted reference to employment at the Belkin Art Gallery as it doesn't seem relevant to the artist's practice. These additional sources better establish notability. Rossmoss (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This would be a Hey keep anyone actually adding references to an article at an AFD in lieu of other things is commentdable. Otr500 (talk) 00:26, 22 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 Against Me! discography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivida Vis![edit]

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

A non-notable punk music album, the most relevant fact seems to be that only 500 copies of it were sold since 1998. The band is notable, but music does not inherit notability from the band. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:NALBUM, some references to it in RS but they are passing mentions as part of reviews of other albums or discussion of the band in general. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Against Me! discography. It is mentioned there and could be a useful/plausible search term. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Striking my original vote. Article title is at least in theory a plausible search term, and there are no similarly named articles. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(nom) No objection to redirect. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Against Me! discography per above. PhilKnight (talk) 01:32, 22 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 consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CSAM Health[edit]

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

The article makes no claim to notability. Google searches return plenty press release driven publicity, but not much else. The recent edits by 382C include removing the notability tag but they've not provided an edit summary so no justification has been given. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2005 article from Businessweek discusses a Rikshospitalet project implementation and mentions a "CSAM International" company being spun-out. When the WP:SPA CSAM's original article was accepted at AfC it also had another 3rd party reference, a now-gone E24 item, though that appears only to have been routine coverage about periodic financial results. Since then despite maintenance edits by a couple of further WP:SPA accounts, the article quality has not improved. Passing press mentions [1] confirm it as a company going about its business, but searches are not finding the substantial coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indi 2ndary sources + routine coverage fails CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 17:03, 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. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Louis Boitel[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for politicians and judges. The only source in the article is a captioned picture and I can not find anything else in reliable sources. Jbh ^Talk 21:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently searching for news articles directly. Thank you for your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigleybr (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Liberland doesn't even have an established diplomatic relationship with the country that Boitel is supposedly "ambassador" to — which makes him not a real "ambassador" in the conventional sense, but merely a personal friend of the micronation's "president" who was given a courtesy "title" just because he happens to live in France. However, diplomats are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist, even in real established countries with real diplomatic recognition — and they are definitely not presumed notable if they're the "ambassadors" of virtually unrecognized micronations. Ambassadors are accepted as notable enough for articles if they can be properly sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about them to clear GNG, but not if their only "source" is a photograph on a non-notable photographer's self-published personal website. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable secondary sources to satisfy GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above by other editors WikiHannibal (talk) 10:45, 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. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boguslaw Wozniak[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for politicians and judges. The only source in the article is a blog and I can not find anything else in reliable sources. Jbh ^Talk 21:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "inherent" notability of deputy heads of state attaches to the deputy heads of state of real established countries with real diplomatic recognition, not to the self-appointed governments of virtually unrecognized micronations whose only established diplomatic relationship is with one other unrecognized polity, and no reliable source coverage has been shown to get him over WP:GNG as an individual in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. In lieu of the lack of "inherent" notability due to the "government" not being recognized by any established full-fledged nations, there is simply not enough reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has an additional problem of being overly promotional. To call Liberland a "partially recognized" nation is an abuse of the term. South Ossetia is partially recognized. Liberland only has recognition from the unrecognized Somaliland, which has no political influence in the region where Liberland claims to exist, so it is an empty gesture.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons laid out by everybody above, and what I /we all said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Walls.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Walls[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for politicians and judges. The only source in the article is a blog and I can not find anything else in reliable sources. Jbh ^Talk 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "inherent" notability of government cabinet ministers attaches to the cabinets of real established countries with real diplomatic recognition, not to the self-appointed governments of virtually unrecognized micronations whose only established diplomatic relationship is with one other unrecognized polity, and no reliable source coverage has been shown to get him over WP:GNG as an individual in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage to pass GNG (per Bearcat). At the very/absolute most, redirect to Liberland (he exists). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a partially recognized place is one like Kosovo, or maybe Abkazia, the latter having peaked at 6 nation recognition (it has since receded to 4), not counting another 3-4 non-recognized places. Abkazia also actually controls territory etc. The nation here lacks recognition by any place that has a role in its area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Liberland is not a country, it is not a "partially recognized place," it is an intellectual prank. Thomas Walls is one of the pranksters. I's glad he and his buddy are having fun with this , but he fails WP:BASIC WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG for dearth of sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinisha Nisevic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG possible autobiographical editing by a WP:SPA Dom from Paris (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Not enough coverage of subject in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an extra source has been added since the nomination. The source is the subject's own blog so of no use in proving notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah, i'm not finding anything. TOOSOON for now. --Theredproject (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of mentions, but little in the way of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:36, 22 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. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sufiah Yusof[edit]

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

Subjects notability rests on her entry to Oxford age 13 -- young, but far from the youngest entrant -- and as the Telegraph put it: a "prodigy gone wrong". Her subsequent career has been in a different field and does not meet notability requirements. Hillbillyholiday (talk) 20:16, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Andy Dingley (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Although the references were published over a reasonable period of time, they all detail her then-current life in the context of and because of her young entry to university. As there is no evidence she (as opposed to her father) has ever sought media attention, she is a low-profile individual. Qwfp (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP violation. Appears to be about a person who was abused into out performing academically and has suffered since, hardly neutral, even if it is all true. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Reed Tucker[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality, referenced entirely to directly affiliaed primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, radio personalities do not get an automatic "no valid sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because they exist; rather, they must be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in sources independent of their own self-published web presence, to pass WP:GNG. Nothing here shows that, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of any 3rd-party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. unique name, but searches come up empty. Lede asserts that he is best known for The Lazlow Show, but a search on "Jonathan Reed Tucker" + "The Lazlow Show" brought up nothing useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 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. SpinningSpark 10:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babyhaven.com[edit]

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

Spammy equivalent of a business profile with mostly mill coverage or fluff mixed with interviews. No real in-depth coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet WP:NOTSPAM, notability is irrelevant as this is obviously a commissioned work done by an account that thought ACTRIAL was still running so it gamed it's way to autoconfirmed status before creating the advertisement. Likely eligible for G5 if someone wanted to bother filling out the CU paperwork. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the sources are reliable and the page has been written in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. I think any kind of improvement suggestion if possible will be better. Aapos (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)— Aapos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aapos Show me one source which features in-depth coverage and isn't cruft. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad, I don't know if you call this a trivial mention or a detailed coverage. A sensible person wouldn't call this a cruft. Please have a look at this link. https://www.dailybreeze.com/2014/08/15/small-businesses-tap-amazons-shipping-prowess-to-sell-more-earn-more/.

I am putting the whole text here if you don't have time to go over there and read the relevant story.

"A seller’s best bet for competing with Amazon is to offer a unique selection that the site doesn’t have, said Jennifer Becker, co-founder of BabyHaven.com, a baby clothing and accessory company with a warehouse in Santa Fe Springs.

“We try to find the product before Amazon stocks it,” Becker said. “You have to play around what Amazon retail is doing.”

Becker started selling electronics on eBay when she and her twin brother, Jason Becker, were still students at Crescenta Valley High School. While she was at Cal Poly Pomona and he was at Cal State Long Beach, they founded BabyHaven.com, which did $600,000 in revenue its first year.

The company sold $20 million worth of product in 2013 and is on track to increase that figure by 50 to 70 percent this year, Jennifer Becker said.

Last year, BabyHaven opened a brick-and-mortar store in Glendale to keep its vendors happy.

“They say that if somebody wants to test the stroller out they need a physical location,” Jennifer Becker said. “Even though what we’ve found is that they come in and look at it — and then they buy it online.”

Also, please go through this and this Aapos (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole lot of primary fluff. And yeah, I'd consider them talking about their own business ventures to be pretty trivial. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are from reliable sources and the coverage is also not just trivial mention. Just because it has been created by a new user, it wouldn't be fair to delete it. If new users contribute in accordance with the Wikipedia policies, they shouldn't be discouraged to do so. 27.255.30.126 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit made by this IP. —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that this new user is clearly not contributing in terms with our policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Feels like a promotion. Acnetj (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve Oscar for this vote. I see you are more concerned with your random vote counts than the quality of an article. Your edit history reveals that. If you had bothered to read what the editors say, you wouldn't have posted this. Go through this link and have look at what they say. Aapos (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aapos Something something glass houses. You really shouldn't be attacking people as it violates WP:CIVIL but it's also pretty ironic given your account is brand new and has only edited to promote this subject. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was and am commenting as a juror by looking at the article itself and judging what has been presented. Nothing more or less.Acnetj (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional, and the plea above for keeping are evidence of the coi and of the promotional intent. Probably is a G5, but a delete here will have more effectiveness. ``

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ekushey Padak. Article history preserved to allow selective merges to be carried out SpinningSpark 11:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekushey Padak in Social service[edit]

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

I'm nominating this & following articles. all of those article contain same text except one or two line in the introduction. i don't see any good reason to split one award into 11 articles. The main article Ekushey Padak already covered most of the information. Main article isn't big enough. We can easily fit all of one or two extra info in the main article. My suggestion is delete them all and/or merge them into main article. আফতাব (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekushey Padak in Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in Economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in Journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in Language Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in Literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in Social service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekushey Padak in War of Liberation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--আফতাব (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- You need to put AfD notifications on all of these articles immediately. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 18:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this all articles translated form Bangla Wikipedia but writing skill are not similar as Bangla. articles will be developed very soon with more details. Thanks, ZI Jony (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing special you can add. You can add all of special one/two line info in the main article with a section. You can add Ekushey Padak award winner in that field. But we already have articles for them. If you want to sort them, just go there and create a sortable wikitable.

--আফতাব (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ekushey Padak for now. Per nomination, they currently pretty much duplicate the main article. Sections can be added there on the individual awards, taking time to really develop each section properly. If any of the sections starts to get too big for the main article, they can be split away one at a time as required. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ekushey Padak. As the articles currently stand, the individual fields can be added as sections in the main article. MT Train^Talk 06:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Ekushey Padak. There should be sections for each category on that page, but until there's significantly more content there's no reason for stand-alone pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:05, 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 no consensus. There is Cleary no consensus to delete are arguments are reasonably split between merge or keep. Neither option requires an AFD so further discussion belongs on the article talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers in... journal series[edit]

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

This page in Wikipedia is just serving as a proxy for the company website; the only source for this list is the company website. Fails WP:LISTN as well as WP:PROMO, which says "...All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources.... Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website...." This page grew out of a discussion here about whether this list belongs in the main Frontiers Media article; I and others have said it doesn't belong there. It doesn't cut it as a standalone article either. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a WP:ABF nomination, not even giving time for the article to be built. This article is most certainly not a 'proxy for the website'. While Jytdog and others did indeed said it didn't belong in Frontiers Media, many others said that it did, or that an article on the series would be an acceptable alternative. In any cases, this is a notable series of journals, which easily meets WP:GNG, and should be kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worthwhile information to have about a notable (but not in a good way) publisher. Since it disambiguates between Frontiers Media journals and those with similar names from other publishers, it provides more value than the company's own catalogue does. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither !vote above addresses the reasons for the nomination. If you want to IAR that is fine of course but please be explicit about that, and acknowledge that this an extension of the company website (the only source for the complete list is the company's website) so fails PROMO and fails LISTN (what independent sources talk about all the journals, distinct from the publisher which already has an article?). Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an extension of the website, and never will be, nor is is in violation of WP:PROMO or WP:LISTN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This diff for example just pads this page, with content about the publisher. We already have an article on the publisher and N is not inherited. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, both the series and the publisher are intertwined and inherit each other's notability, and the series also inherits its constituents' notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that in this case, notability is inherited. The publisher is notable, what the publisher does is publish journals, and so the "group or set" of journals is, jointly, notable. Given that the original article rather thoroughly documents the controversies surrounding the publisher, listing their journals is hardly an advertisement. (In fact, having a separate page for the list is suboptimal from this point of view.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again you can IAR I reckon but please be explicit that this is your argument. I am not going to keep replying here, so as not to clutter the discussion. So bye for now. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I prefer the list in the publisher article myself, but Jytdog (among others) opposed that. Shows there's just no pleasing some people. I can live with with a merge back to the publisher, or a standalone list, but the content is relevant and should exist somewhere on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it's a fork to get around consensus? --Calton | Talk 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really no. It's a possible solution that may make more people happy than the old one. I'm entirely fine merging this back at Frontiers Media like it was, but some folks are just categorically against this content in whatever form it is, regardless of reasons. You'll never be able to please those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, yes, it's a pointless fork to get around consensus. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no, it's exactly not that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an appropriate list article. Many of these will not warrant an article themselves, and so should just appear in a list like this. It is probably excessive to merge with Frontiers Media. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Frontiers series is beloved of cranks ad charlatans but has no significant scientific reputation. This listrcruft exists solely because it was WP:UNDUE in the main article. WP:LAUNDRY applies. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That it is beloved by cranks and charlatan is one further reason to keep the article. Regardless of your personal opinion about the reputation of these journals, the fact remain that Frontiers journals are have high visibility, and relatively high impact. You wouldn't catch me dead publishing in them, and I'd seriously question any research that was referenced to Frontiers, but we deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And given the extent that Frontiers journals are cited on Wikipedia (see #78) ... we badly need this article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth commenting on. I totally get it, that some people think it is important for WP to be a sort of card-catalog for journals -- that there be this library-like function in mainspace. But Wikipedia is not a catalog. Wikidata could definitely serve that purpose; it is within its mission to gather up all data. If folks want something text-based, I wonder if there should be something like a "WikiCardCatalog" project where people who want to do this, can do it. But WP mainspace is not a place for cataloging.....Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is nowhere near a catalogue entry. As for sources which discuss the journal series as a whole, you'll find this to meet exactly that criterion. An analysis of predatory publishing with and without Frontiers journals.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That it is beloved by cranks and charlatan is one further reason to keep the article. That rationale has nothing to do with this list, and is a rebuttal to an argument not even being made.

The article is nowhere near a catalogue entry. Based on what? It's (almost) literally just a list of titles, with no notes, no explanations, no links, no details, and no organizing principle other than the alphabetical. If readers want a company catalog, it's not Wikipedia's job to provide that, it's the company's. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article. Did you even read it? There's plenty of analysis, history, commentary, sourcing. It goes well beyond a simple listing (which would be completely fine to have on its own, btw), and easily passes WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Headbomb pretty much explicitly states above that this pointless list was created to dodge its inclusion in the main article. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I do not state. ~~My prefered solution is to include this in the article.~~ This is a compromise version. This is not an attempt to 'dodge inclusion', this is an attempt to maximize satisfaction.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, with the recent expansions, my preferred solution is now a standalone article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't yet a consensus to get around. I'd prefer to keep everything in one article; a separate list page was a not-great but not-bad-sounding alternative. Failing that, I think the sources turned up in the course of building this page (e.g., footnotes 11–17) should be incorporated into the main Frontiers Media article. Generally, I just think that when I look up a publisher in a reference work, one thing I'd like to be able to find is what they publish. XOR'easter (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I do not state. Nope, that's the only reasonable interpretation of what you wrote. If you want this -- frankly -- pointless list, get consensus to include it in the actual article. If you can't get, well, too bad, people will just have to go to the company website. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Luckily, for those who want to find out what Frontiers Media publishes, they maintain this website. It is a clear pass of the criteria at WP:EL, and should be included as an external link on the Frontiers Media page. It is also the only actual source for the content of this list, so exactly 0 encyclopedic value is lost by chucking the list for the link. (And if any individual journals are notable, there can be a reasonable-size subsection called "Notable journals" or something.) --JBL (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the only static source for the full content of the list itself (the only other sources I could find were partial, e.g., [2], or directory search results), but other references discuss the collection as a unit. And, as I mentioned in the original discussion, having a list of our own means that we can indicate if a journal changes its name, ceases publication, etc. This is the kind of information that, in my experience, is difficult to find from a publisher's catalogue because it gets buried or elided and has to be sourced from elsewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can only do that if there are reliable sources that allow us to do that by writing about it. And if an individual journal has reliable sources writing about it, then it is independently notable and can have its own article. --JBL (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of reliable sources writing about the journal series. It easily passes WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an individual journal is only covered in one or two niche-but-reliable sources (as is the case for several in the list here, I've found), then I'm sure an article on that individual journal would be brought to AfD, and I bet a common sentiment would be to merge and redirect it to the article on the publisher, and we'd be right back where we started. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I invite you to test this theory, rather than use a hypothetical with no supporting evidence as a reason to include an indiscriminate list of non-notable journals in a publisher's article when precisely the same service can be provided to readers by an external link without violating any important guidelines. --JBL (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that hypothetical; it's what happened with History Matters, for example: mentioned only briefly in niche-but-reliable sources, and so merged into the article on the university that publishes it. Microbial Genomics was redirected to the Microbiology Society. Similarly for Hurly-Burly, which was merged to the article on its founder. In the case of Catalyst, the article on a new journal was redirected to that of its more-established sister publication, per WP:TOOSOON. The argument has also been made in discussions that ended up with deletion, e.g., IEEE Transactions on Emerging Health in Computational Intelligence. XOR'easter (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is now just a fork of Frontiers Media. The encyclopedic content belongs in that article (and that's what all the substantive references are about). The list of journals is not encyclopedic content and doesn't belong on Wikipedia (but would make a fine external link). --JBL (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or~~ Merge with Frontiers Media. This AfD nomination was made within 20 minutes of the article's creation while it was actively under construction, which to me does not assume good faith, and is fairly malicious. I know there's no rule on how soon an article can be nominated, but I'm tired of running into AfDs which were nominated while obviously still under construction. Just assume good faith people! I know there are draft forms and sandboxes for this, so the article's creator is more at fault, but in any case nominators should be able to tell when a page is under construction and should practice patience before getting a quick AfD stat. Ok, off my soapbox.. In its current state the article is well-written and well sourced with reliable and verifiable references. Since the AfD nomination the page has been completely overhauled and has a lot of material that is specific to the Frontier Journals that warrants a nice spinout article from the main page. My recommendation would be to change the name to "Frontiers journal series" as it is on the Frontiers Media page as that's how more people would likely search for it, but as it stands right now the page meets WP:GNG and should be kept. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers journal series redirects to the article btw, as do a few other aliases. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity, the above isn't a criticism of jytdog, who is an exceptional editor, it's more of my frustration in the current AfD policies. Just preemptively stating this as the above was not to be inflammatory! :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Semmendinger thanks for your kind note. The additional content is padding and is about the publisher; this was entirely predictable. The creator is focused on getting the full list of Frontiers journals somewhere in Wikipedia under the (in my view) mistaken notion that WP should be a catalog for journals. That is what this is about, at base - they created this only after getting resistance to including the list in the publisher article. The list of Frontiers journals is not notable; the publisher is. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right: none of the encyclopedic content added to this article is about the "Frontiers in ... series" as distinct from the publisher Frontiers Media; the two subjects are synonymous for all practical purposes. There should be one article, it should have the union of the encyclopedic contents of these two articles, and it should not have the list of all journals because that's just an indiscriminate list and is better provided as an external link. If anyone is engaging in bad faith here it is Headbomb, creating and then padding this article to avoid the consensus here to delete the list of journals. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response. The way I see it now (after reading much more into the resulting conversation since I've initially voted) is that this page might be a proper WP:SPINOUT article for the main Frontiers Media article, but at this point in time that main page isn't large enough to warrant a spinout. I agree that the list of journals alone does not meet notability, but the rest of the information that's been included in the current state of this page is actually pretty well-sourced and would be a nice addition to the main page should this one fall under deletion. For now, I've changed my vote to Merge with the main page. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Semmendinger: Have you seen [3]/[4]/[5]/[6]/[7]/etc... which all treat or talk about the series as a whole, distinctly from the publisher? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do not know the strength of the first ref you listed, but the other two are really good. At this point I just don't see the need to make a spinout article for the journals when this all would fit so well in the main page. Without the journal title section the rest of this article fits nicely in Frontiers Media. I think you've done a lot of excellent work in creating this page and am pretty much sitting on the fence because both sides are bringing up fair points (I feel bad for whoever has to make the final decision here). I'm 100% against deletion on this, but when this information fits perhaps better in the main article I can't strongly vote keep, so merge seems like a happy medium in light of arguments made here. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Semmendinger: The first ref addresses specifically how the picture of predatory publishing changes depending on whether or not you consider the Frontiers journal series to be predatory. As for the list itself, it's of rather paramount importance, otherwise readers cannot know what journals are in the series, which also runs the risk of confusing a slew of journals and book series named Frontiers in/of... such as Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology (Elsevier) which a reader could easily assume is part of the series when it's not. Or even a worse situation, dealing with Frontiers of Physics (Springer/Higher Education Press journal) vs. Frontiers in Physics (Frontiers Media journal) vs Frontiers in Physics (Princeton University Press book series).Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this situation, Alice applies for a job, with Bob being in charge of the hiring process. Alice published a paper in Frontiers in Diabetes. Having heard colleges having debates about the Frontiers in... series before, Bob decides to check the Frontiers Media/Frontiers journal series article to see what the fuss was about, but it doesn't mention which journals are parts of it, nor is the information available on Wikipedia. Since the journal is named Frontiers in..., they assume it's part of the Frontiers in ... series, while at the same time learning its publishes a lot of quackery, AIDS denialism, anti-vaccines crap, and the like. Bob then judges Alice negatively for publishing in quack journals, and hires someone else instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, but that argument doesn't have a place on Wikipedia and I can't use it when i'm deciding how to vote. Maybe Bob shouldn't be checking Wikipedia when he can check the main Frontiers site instead? Who knows - all I know is we need to go off policy and not contrived hypothetical scenarios. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gutting an article to the point of near-uselessness is not a policy-based argument. This easily passes WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: We have a discussion to merge the list in a article and this only done to remove the list without clear discussion. For now, speedy keep it until there are clear discussion to remove it. 176.27.175.9 (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that any sense can be made of this !vote at all, it appears to have the sequence of events that led to the creation of this article precisely backwards. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The debate surrounding this journal series was very relevant for the open access and peer review developments and quite distinct from the specifics of the publisher, so it makes sense to develop a separate article. --Nemo 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is about the company and its methods, not the names of the specific journals in the series, which is all that this page is meant to provide. The content about the controversy is offtopic and padding here. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list of journals is one of the things that's important about the series, but it's not the only thing. This is not "padding", and this goes well beyond the activities of the publisher, although the two are obviously linked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are only notable lists. Someone put it up to deletion to remove the journal list without clear discussion. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:B058:29BA:584A:4F8D (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is going to be made into a substantive, encyclopedic article, separate from Frontiers Media (which sounds like a silly fork to me but otherwise is not objectionable) it is still the case that the list of journals in the article is unnecessary and should be replaced with an external like to the publisher's webpage, which is the only place it is ever going to be sourced from, anyhow. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you make an article about a series of something, telling what people what is in the series of something is rather important. that's like saying the Forbes Celebrity 100 shouldn't say who the 100 are, because it's sourced through the Forbes Celebrity 100 official list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Forbes Celebrity 100 does not, in fact, list the 100 in question. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, of course, there is coverage of that list qua list. Which is not the case here. Which is the point.) --JBL (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of coverage of the Frontiers series, if you don't like the Forbes Celebrity 100 example, then Alpha Phi Omega/List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I like the example very very much: it shows that your vehemently repeated argument that it is absolutely and obviously necessary to include the list is entirely mistaken. It is a shame that you don't understand this; but I am not an evangelist, I do not need to convert you, I just want to get this piece of junk out of Wikipedia where it does not belong. (Of course, the fact that you have been so personally unpleasant makes me more committed to this goal than I would be under other circumstances.) --JBL (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a piece of junk, nor is the list. Go push your agenda elsewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take your personal comments elsewhere, thanks. --JBL (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll ask you to do the same. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of the Forbes 100 example was that it's OK to have a list whose contents are sourced directly to the organization who made the list. Since a new Forbes 100 comes out every year, it's reasonable to avoid overkill and report only the top 10 from each year, which is what our article does. Whether we include the whole 100 or not is incidental to the point that I thought Headbomb was arguing. (The "America's Best Colleges" list is also annual, but shorter, and we report the whole thing.) Again, perhaps I am mistaken, but that's my take-away. I can sympathize with the desire to keep Wikipedia from becoming a giant cruft pile; I have myself argued for the deletion of articles on academics who I thought did not measure up to WP:PROF, or recreational trivialities from pop math, and I've definitely seen articles on journals that I felt should be deleted (e.g., this one or this one). I don't think cataloging every thing that anybody has called an academic journal is a suitable use for Wikipedia. I simply think that in this case, the publisher is obviously notable, and recording what they do makes our article more useful, without imposing a serious burden on readers who don't particularly care. (I do not believe that the original discussion had arrived at a consensus yet before it spilled over here. Three editors felt that a separate list page would be an OK course of action, if it could be reasonably guaranteed to be kept up-to-date, and @Doug Weller: wrote, "List or whatever, I think it's important to have a way that readers can distinguish between those published by this company and those with just a similar name.") XOR'easter (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really very interested in what Headbomb thought s/he was doing (funny how someone saturating every aspect of an interaction with personalized hostility and unpleasantness will do that!) but it also does not show the thing you are suggesting: there are sources in that article about the list qua list that are not published by Forbes. That list article is a very good example of several appropriate things to do while making a list on Wikipedia: including secondary sources, restricting to notable elements of the list, etc. No one has ever written an article discussing the list of journals published by Frontiers, and most likely no one will ever do so; most of the journals are not notable now, and they may never be. And the correct thing to do under those circumstances is to stick to information that can be supported by reliable secondary sources, giving due weight to those aspects that are notable, and using an appropriate external link for related valuable but non-encyclopedic content. --JBL (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References 2, 15, 16 and 17 in the article as it currently stands are secondary sources that all identify the list of Frontiers journals as a unit (saying that all of them together can be considered a megajournal). Restricting a list to elements that are individually notable is eminently sensible in some cases (e.g., List of people by Erdős number), but it is not the only way to go about listing (e.g., List of polygons, or closer to the topic at hand, the publications section of SIAM or APS). Per WP:CSC, a short and complete list "of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" is permitted "if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers." I think that a 4-by-15 table of 2,098 characters is "reasonably short", that it can aid navigation, and that the relative proportion of bluelinked items to plain ones is itself indicative about the Frontiers business. I can't speak to whether it is "interesting to readers" in general, but if they've read that far into a page about a topic of academic interest (pun intended) they probably care at least a little.

The general hostility of this discussion has been remarkably high (I am reminded of Sayre's law). I would like to apologize if I have contributed to that atmosphere, and I will be taking advantage of the "opportunity" that work deadlines are giving me to step away from wiki-stuff for a few days. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately sourced, and I think it's important to have this as a warning to readers that content in those journals might not be reliable. I was holding off on giving an opinion because in its earlier state (as a bare list) it wasn't clear that it made sense to fork this from the article about its publisher, but now that the article has been beefed up I no longer have that concern. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With this many titles, it's appropriate to have a separate list. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of the main article anymore. This and that are basically the same thing, but that has a few corporate details that this one doesn't, and this one of course has The List. We basically have two chunks of content that we need to keep in sync which is just a stupid waste of time, especially on a journal that is controversial like this. User:DGG and User:David Eppstein your !votes make no sense in a meta-editing sense and are frankly disappointing. Headbomb pre-emptively did a SPLIT instead of just working the process (if we had gone to an RfC the list may well have stayed there_. Way to reward shitty behavior and make more work for the commmunity. We should probably just merge the main article here. Jytdog (talk)

Merge. I've been following this discussion for a while now, but as I don't see any new arguments come up, I decided to give my 2c. Headbomb has put in a great effort to make this an interesting article and I think he has succeeded in that. He has also shown that the series is notable, I feel. The reason I still recommend a merge is the fact that I fail to see much different between "Frontiers Media" and the "Frontiers in" series. Frontiers is a different case from the BMC series. Frontiers only publishes journals in the "Frontiers in" series, whereas BioMed Central publishes the a number of journals outside of the BMC series. As such, I find that for most sources in this article it is not really clear whether they are about the publisher as such or about the series as such. Neither the article on the series nor the article on Frontiers Media is so large that a merge would be prohibitive (and there is some duplication anyway). As for the question whether the list of journals should stay or not, I am neutral. On the one hand, as I have already said elsewhere, I strongly dislike this kind of lists and in general do not feel that they add much value. On the other hand I am susceptible to the argument that readers should be able to see easily whether a certain journal is published by Frontiers or not. An alternative might be to remove the list of journals and replace it under "see also" with a list of notable journals named Frontiers in/of that are not published by Frontiers (perhaps with a subheading "Journals named Frontiers in/of that are not published by Frontiers Media"). --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is one difference. One can be completely oblivious to the company, while being very interested in the issues around the open access and open peer review model exemplified by the journal series. In fact, I think the company is less relevant than the series, so if anything I'd merge the other way round. --Nemo 11:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Randykitty, although I am open to KEEP or to merge as Nemo suggests. As long as the information on Frontiers remains.Michaplot (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, sourced fine, the content should stay. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 20:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge. Notable journals (for rum reasons), but this should be merged to Frontiers Media. Alexbrn (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC); amended 11:39, 22 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 delete. COI - self-advertising Alexf^(talk) 13:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omar yusuph pictures[edit]

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

I can find no indication that this company is notable per WP:GNG, WP:CORP. Google search comes up with fewer than 30 unique results. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. FITINDIA 17:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear COI by the editor who deprodded the article. I cannot find a single reputable secondary source to convince me this comes anywhere close to passing GNG. You could probably argue it should have been speedily deleted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keyrenter[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing (content, sources) makes a claim to significance, and a good-faith search turns up any in-depth sources. Sources that do exists are all traceable back to PR Newswire, which is not reliable. The only real claim to notability is the Entrapenuer Magazine claim (Top 25 new franchises), which again is sourced to... PR Newswire. Interviews and quotes from the subject company's website should also be discounted. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appearing as no.25 in a niche list of Top New Franchise companies is not inherently notable and my searches are finding nothing to indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added additional sources in an attempt to 1) establish notability and 2) provide reliable secondary sources. I added in the link to Entrepreneur to source the claim that Keyrenter was Entrepreneur's #25 top new franchise in 2017. Considering there are approximately 795,932 franchises in the United States^[1], this ranking by Entrepreneur in my opinion establishes this particular franchise's notability. I've also added in two additional and more reliable sources, franchise.org^[2], and franchisedirect.com^[3], to substantiate additional claims in the article. I feel that these changes are enough to demonstrate Keyrenter's notability, so I suggest keeping the article. Tomrainswrites (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cnbc article [8] notes the growth of franchises, but makes no mention of Keyrenter. The other two sources which were added are both listing websites that are akin to chambers of commerce, wherein companies pay to have their information listed. Thus they generally do not qualify as reliable, in-depth, or most importantly independent sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like they are advertising their franchises. Notability not established by the refs, they're primary, trivial or press release. Szzuk (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:50, 22 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yahu Blackwell[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not even come close to meeting WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that he doesn't meet WP:NBOX. That means he needs to meet WP:GNG to be WP notable. At first glance this didn't look like a problem with sources like Forbes and Inc. listed. However, all those articles turned out to have written by the same sports agent as a "contributor", which means there is no editorial oversight--much like a newspaper's "letter to the editor." The remaining coverage does not seem to be the significant, independent coverage from reliable sources required by the GNG. Notability is not obtained by association with notable trainers, trying to market an app, opening a Rita's Italian Ice franchise, winning two bar fights in Tijuana (his two pro victories according to Boxrec), having a self-declared net worth of over a million dollars, or helping fund an orphanage in Cameroon (although it's certainly a good deed). I'll admit I don't know what it means to be the "WBU novice world champion" (novice and world champion are a strange pairing), which is not reliably sourced, but I know that even a full-fledged WBU world championship is insufficient to show boxing notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha Rana[edit]

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

Non notable Bollywood actress. References based on Gossip blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonia89f (talk • contribs)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received international newspaper coverage over the space of several years, though the article could do with a solid cleanup so that more of that coverage winds up in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh--Nothing more than trivial name-mentions across various news-entries.Not convinced either-ways but leaning delete~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has three promnent leading roles in films as confirmed by tne article's sources so passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actor. Not a single notable reference. Example this 1st reference used in her wiki page is Rekha Rana The Brand Ambassador For Women'S Helmet that too is some blog. All other references are just a mention only. However searching on google, I got this news link about her. Mumbai Crime: Bizman Accuses Starlet Of Grabbing Car, Blackmail which says she had some minor roles in a couple of films. HelloDolly89 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:52, 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. Killiondude (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everly Music Company[edit]

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

Non-notable company with no more than business listings apart from a brief mention here here to prove it exists. Created by a COI editor and fails CORPDEPTH. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article created by Jason Everly so a coi. 2 refs that are about the singer with one sentence each about the music company. I couldn't find their website, 1 of the refs mentions the company in the past tense, a google returns a closed business notice on yelp, so I suspect it is a defunct company that was likely never notable. Both refs added after the afd by an apparently unconnected editor but with no vote. Szzuk (talk) 16:12, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaf Zina[edit]

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

Several glaring problems here. First off, notability is not inherited which, in this case, to her alleged husband. All of the news sources are in the context of her spouse. Two, we are not the news; light coverage is tracked to early April 2017 then falls off immediately. And finally, the subject is a BLP and there is not a particular claim for individual notability, besides this one event. Perhaps you can argue this should be redirected to her husband's article and briefly mentioned, but a seperate article is clearly undue. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons given, especially WP:BLP1E. The article is entirely about her arrest, which is a heck of a thing to base an alleged biography on. --GRuban (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's still a living person! Give her the privacy a private individual deserves! Does anybody has a fetish for terrorism-related event, person, or objects? Dannyniu (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a courtesy to ~~previously non-notable people~~ people who are relatively unknown, we require a higher bar of notability, before we cover them. Dannyniu, are you really argung that Rahaf Zina should be seen as a ~~non-notable person~~ low-profile individual? However, wasn't her husband a Daesh cabinet member? Can anyone argue that people who measure up to WP:POLITICIAN, or their spouses, should be considered ~~non-notable people~~ people who are relatively unknown? As the widow of someone who measures up to POLITICIAN I suggest you should not argue she merits the courtesy privacy protection we offer ~~previously non-notable people~~ people who are relatively unknown. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't speak for Dannyniu, but yes, I will absolutely argue that being the wife of a cabinet member does not make you notable. Notability is not inherited. We did not have an article on this person before this incident, and this article is made entirely of sources generated after the incident. The signs of prior notability are severely lacking. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wrote "previously non-notable people", and didn't use the precise phrases BLP uses "people who are relatively unknown" and low-profile individual No, being the wife of a POLITICIAN doesn't make you WP:NOTABLE notable, but my suggestion was that being the spouse of a cabinet member disqualifies you from the special courtesy privacy protections we extend to low-profile individuals, who are relatively unknown. Rahaf Zina, unlike people who meet the criteria for POLITICIAN, would have her notability built up by adding multiple notability factors, which would include:
    1. Claims she paid one million Phillipines dollars to a confederate who was a senior Police official;
    2. Claims she was involved in a plot to bomb the Phillipines;
    3. Marrying her former brother-in-law -- this was standard procedure, in various cultures, but is remarkably uncommon now.

This discussion may conclude her notability factors don't currently add up to enough notability for a standalone article, but I think claims she is a BLP1E are specious. Geo Swan (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the degree that "claims" can actually be said to be an "event", two claims made at once would still be one event. As for the claim that she married her brother-in-law:

That claim was not in the source being cited, so I deleted source.
Even had she married the brother of her late husband, that would not be marrying her brother-in-law, as marriages end with death; she would be marrying her former brother-in-law.
Even had she married her former brother-in-law, that would not be the sort of thing that would get coverage on its own. I've never seen a headline proclaiming that someone otherwise non-famous has done that.

This is a blatant WP:BLPCRIME case, and inventing things about her isn't going to change that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er ... where is our list of articles of actual Daesh "cabinet members" again? I propose that Daesh "cabinet members" do not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN much less their spouses. There is a reason for this! Being an actual politician demands extensive publicity and press coverage to get people to vote for you. That is what makes it pretty likely there are large quantities of sources about you that we can write articles from. Being a leader of a terrorist group demands extensive secrecy to get your much more powerful enemies not to drop bombs on you. That's what makes it pretty hard to write articles about leaders of terrorist groups. Again, much less their spouses! --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- As for a "fetish for terrorism related events, persons", etc... First, terrorists are much less common than murderers. We don't cover every murderer, only truly exceptional murderers, because murders are so commons, and, sadly most of them are so similar, that we can adequately cover almost all murders, and almost all murderers, in our more general articles, on murder, on domestic violence, on drug dealing, etc. But terrorists are relatively rare, rare enough that each one is unique enough for a standalone article. If murderers were that rare, we would cover just about every one of them too.
  Female terrorists are particularly uncommon. It is rather a man's field. Geo Swan (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Geo Swan careful calling a BLP a terrorist when, at best, she is a suspect. And terroists are relatively rare? There were over 11,000 individual terror attacks in 2016.[9] That is little over 30 per day and I imagine every single one was not committed simply by just one person. Do literally tens of thousands of people each year deserve an article simply because you are under the false impression that terrorism is "relatively rare"?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME; the merely accused do not get an article except under extraordinary circumstances. This is not the first such problematic article along these lines from this editor, and some preventive measures should perhaps be considered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect this should be discussed jointly with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, possibly with a view to merge both to an article regarding the plot and not the BLPs - however issues on both are similar. If Hussein Al-Dhufairi is notable per WP:SOLDIER (and note - this isn't just a crime "thing") and this BLP is not - then this should redirect there.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to merging the Rahaf Zina article into the article on her husband... When I first started reading about the arrests, while all the articles agreed that she was travelling with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, the reporting was genuinely confusing, with many articles saying she was married to Hussein Al-Dhufairi, and others saying she was the widow of his brother Abdul Mohsin Al-Dhufairi. This is the kind of detail reporters get wrong. It took me some time to realize that, after her first husband, the father of the child she was bearing, was KIA, she subsequently married his brother. So, in a situation like this, where someone has been married twice, it is harder to argue it is obvious the article should be merged with the spouse's article. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but in this case it would seem both are primarily notable for the Philippine plot they got arrested for (and subsequent deportations / etc.) - am I wrong?Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check Nom's assertion that "All of the news sources are in the context of her spouse" is misleading and untrue. What AFP, for example actually reported is that she is a member of ISIS and was in the Philippines to carry out "a bombing operation". Here is an open access article: "Philippines police arrest couple with alleged Isis ties in joint operation with US and Kuwaiti intelligence" excerpt from text: "arrest... may have been planning bomb attacks"E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Manila Times reports "Dismissed Police Supt. Maria Christina Nobleza received at least P1 million in money transfers from Rahaf Zina, the widow of a top IS Syria official, before both women were arrested in April and March, respectively." Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Gregory, come on now, you have to realize I read anything you throw out there, and know you are just reiterating my point with the source. Zina is described within the context of her husband--as a widower and possible wife. Any "notability" she possesses is from this one event, and any merge would be too soon since no one has actually been convicted yet of any plot.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, and rename something like 2017 ISIS bomb plot. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give an opportunity for editors to consider Gregory's submissions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nat Gertler, including the part about taking a closer look at the contributions Geo Swan. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both this and Hussein Al-Dhufairi to Abu Jandal al-Kuwaiti. Abu Jandal is apparently notable, the other two people are not, and the Philippines "terrorism plot" isn't notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse User:Power~enwiki's merger proposal as per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge three BLPs into one? Highly unlikely and against the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Zina and Dhufairi just simply are not notable; repackaging them does not change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:10, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur Gopal Das[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Like any other motivational speaker, his name appears in lists of speakers at events, but the sources provided in the article do not show how he meets WP:GNG. The awards he has won are not notable, and the article looks very much like a promotional effort (just like most of the sources quoted are). Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He is also called by name "Gaur Gopal Prabhu", He has been gained immense popularity all over India in social media as well as in news channels/ News papers. He got his facebook & twitter accounts verified as well, before anyone could jump on and start saying that verified page is not considered as parameter for notability.... I got to tell you one thing, Sometime we Wikipedians has to think in real word scenario and should not sit and start finding traces of notability over internet. Thanks ! Apologies if you find anything wrong in my comment. Proud to be Indian <3 :)

Have few questions

How many of an Indian motivational speakers given their speech in Google's head office? --> Very rare--> This guy did this
How many of an Indian motivational speakers given their speech British Parliament? --> Very few--> This guy did this

want some more? Who are we to decide his notability, Answer is... Yes, we are just a common people. We are not any CEO of Google or Administrator of British Parliament, who knew his notability very well, to invite him to their office to enlighten people minds. Thanks for reading this! Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenNkadalaveni (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the followup question to those claims has to be "where are the sources for that"? You already know that Facebook and Twitter accounts are not indicators of notability as Wikipedia defines it, but it looks like you might be under the impression that sources have to be online (if I interpret your comment "finding traces of notability over internet" correctly). That is not the case. Most online sources are useless as far as showing notability is concerned, and many offline sources (books published by reputable publishers, reliable printed newspapers and magazines, etc) are perfectly acceptable as sources as long as they actually support the information in the article. There are no sources at all for the claim that he was especially invited by Google's CEO (and I'm sorry, but that in itself would not mean the person was notable as Wikipedia defines it), and the sources for his speaking in front of Parliament are not independent/secondary (and again, his speaking there is not a claim to notability in itself. Many people do that. If theie speech is discussed in secondary sources it's a claim to notability, if not, it's not.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines and reads like a piece of promotion. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:25, 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 redirect to Shalimar Television Network (STN). Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shalimar TV[edit]

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

No coverage. Vanity website, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge/Redirect – To Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage (Pakistan) at this time. There is already a section dealing with SRBC. Note, however, I can see a separate article dealing with Shalimar TV in the very near future. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per WP:BROADCAST, which wisely states that " Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." Also, WP:NWEB is shockingly inapropos. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is just the entertainment part of Shalimar Television Network (STN), which is a short article and can cope with the extra content easily enough. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shalimar Television Network (STN). No evidence of notability inherently. Ajf773 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shalimar Television Network (STN). MT Train^Talk 06:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and Shamilar Television Network (STN) to ATV (Pakistan), the current entity which shares these entity's heritage. The latter suggestion is just as bad a mess; a merge of simplified content to ATV is for the best here. Nate • (chatter) 05:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another similar article named Network Television Marketing. @Mrschimpf:, @Mark the train:, @Ajf773:, @Prince of Thieves:, @Shoessss: What are your thoughts now, should we redirect these two to STN or all three to ATV Pakistan as suggested by Nate. Störm (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect all three to ATV (Pakistan). -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes....if at the end of the AFD, and that is the consensus, Yes. If you need help doing it let me know. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Redirect all to ATV (Pakistan) if there is consensus. MT Train^Talk 16:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Agreed wholeheartedly. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hult[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BIO. The single reliable source in the article contains a passing mention and quote. I could find nothing else on him although there is a hockey player by the same name who may be masking search results. There is also a passing mention in Ross, Casey. "New NorthPoint Project Making a Big Splash ; EF Education First's New Headquarters to Feature a Towering Glass Waterfall, Underline Firm's Progress." The Boston Globe (Boston, MA). Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC. 2012. HighBeam Research. 14 Mar. 2018 .

His father seems to be notable but notability is not inherited. A COI editor has created articles on the whole family: Edward Hult, Philip Hult, and the father Bertil Hult. Jbh ^Talk 13:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If one member of the family is notable, the other member can be mentioned there, but should not have separate articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:20, 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 speedy delete. A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

वयम् - आपण सारे[edit]

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

I have marked this for deletion more then once, and either an Single Purpose IP (or the creator) have removed the tags. So I am now AFDing it as none notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:13, 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. (non-admin closure) talk to !dave 18:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of EQUIS accredited institutions[edit]

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

Very dynamic list. We don't need to guide which university is accredited with what through a list per WP:NOTGUIDE. This comes under WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar one:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Störm (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, there is nothing in WP:NOTGUIDE which applies to this list. Second, WP:LISTCRUFT is not only a mere essay, it also doesn't apply, since this list is not indiscriminate; it has perfectly binary inclusion criteria, and it's also not trivial. First, let's talk about notability. The only relevant guideline here is WP:LISTN, which tells us that a list is notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." That is obviously going to be the case with any legit accrediting consortium, and it's the case with this one. For instance, Newsweek, Financial Times, and so on. Furthermore, WP:CLN tells us that categories and lists complement one another. There are tons of categories based on accreditation association, just for instance, Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association. In short, this list is notable, it's not a guide, it's not cruft, it's the kind of thing which complements many existing categories, and so it should be kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs a list. It will be better served by a category not a list. Störm (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Well said 192.160.216.52. I know AFD is not a Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion where we count up the Keep and Delete comments and that the one that is represented more is the final outcome, but rather a censuses on which side presents the better argument. 192.160.216.52 presented such a very compelling and valid argument that I cannot add anything other than to say Keep.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kudos for explaining how this is a valid list. I personally think this is a valid list of bluelinked educational organisations (sub-faculties are not notable, but all the universities are). No one seems to give WP:CLN any respect, but it does apply here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging participant from recent similar AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of universities with computer engineering programs. @Michig:, @Mark the train:, @Ajf773:, @Cordless Larry:, @Johnpacklambert:. Störm (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not very comparable, this is a specific accreditation the university holds. Not some random course it offers. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not only not comparable, it's WP:CANVASsing, as every participant pinged voted to delete on that AfD. Since it's not comparable, this isn't a neutral notification. The last time I pointed this kind of behavior out, Störm took me to ANI. Maybe this time they'll have the decency to withdraw this nomination, the integrity of which has been hopelessly compromised by this contrapolicy move. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LISTCRUFT only reasonably refers to keeping a list of minor unimportant things. Everything listed here is notable or potentially notable, and the factor of being accredited by a particular accreditor is a key part of their `significance.

It should also be a category. The two are complementary. Categories are automatically populated, but lists can give some additional information, in this case, a location and the affiliated university. Sometimes one is helpful for navigation, sometimes another. Of the arguments for deletion given in the nomination

"We don't need to guide which university is accredited with what through a list " that's a matter of opinion. I think that in general we need every rational navigational aide. the nature of the accreditation can best be see by a list of what they accredit. What one editor may or may not need is not a criterion for deletion. If I made WP according to what I think important or needed, it would have about 1/2 as much content, and similarly I suppose for everyone else--but a different 1/2 for each of us.

"Very dynamic list" Is that supposed to be a criticism. I suppose it means that the list will be hard to maintain. I don't see why--as we add the articles, we maintain the list. It will need a check every few years to see if it is still the case, but that also applies to every individual article that lists it. Eventually, Wikidata will solve this and most other updating problems DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list, not indiscriminate, not listcruft. Szzuk (talk) 16:22, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World University Rankings 2015[edit]

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

We usually don't copy rankings from sites and mirror them per WP:NOTMIRROR. This is very selective with undefined criteria, better do what we do for 'Forbes rankings'. This comes under WP:LISTCRUFT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian medical college rankings, 2015. Störm (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, WP:NOTMIRROR is completely, astoundingly, irrelevant to this article. This list has exactly none of the qualities discussed there. Secondly, WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not policy, and it also does not apply here. That essay is about indiscriminate lists, that is lists without a well-defined inclusion criterion. This list has a perfectly well-defined objective binary inclusion criterion, stated right at the top of the list: Universities "which are ranked in the top 50 by at least one of the following..." Thus there's no valid reason given for deletion. Finally, the actually applicable notability guideline, WP:LISTN, tells us that a list subject is notable when the entries have been discussed as a group by RS. That's clearly the case with World University Rankings. See e.g. The Guardian, Times Higher Ed Supplement, and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – And again Well said 192.160.216.52. I know AFD is not a Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion where we count up the Keep and Delete comments and that the one that is represented more is the final outcome, but rather a censuses on which side presents the better argument. 192.160.216.52 presented such a very compelling and valid argument that I cannot add anything other than to say Keep. I may just follow you around all day! ShoesssS ^Talk 14:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the undefined criteria issue, I think that is a fair point, but there is an article on these criteria (including criticism), and a link to that would remove the problem. They are certainly not arbitrary lists, all three ranking organisations being respectable and with their own articles. Having a single place giving the results for one year is a useful resource - rather than delete, encouraging similar reports for other years would be a good way forward. The listing itself is noteworthy, giving Anglo-American universities all the top places - depending on your view notably encouraging or something that reflects the criticism of the approaches discussed in the other articles; but this article is not attempting to interpret it, just giving the data for readers to consider and other editors to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe WP:CIL applies. The selection of rankings also seems rather arbitrary (unless it would be explained). --Muhandes (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Muhandes; pages that are simply replications of lists published elsewhere should generally be deleted. Also, having this type of list for every individual year is excessive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.First, about the criteria etc This is a comparison of the three standard international lists--it is easy to show they are currently the principal lists (Inside Higher Ed .^[4] )--it will also be possible to discuss adding others. An introductory paragraph is necessary to explain this, and to very briefly summarize how the criteria for the 3 lists are different, so people reading it will not be confused. Second, about repeating material from elsewhere: this is a compilation of data, and, within limits, that has always been part of the function of encyclopedias and almanacs; and , according to WP:NOT, WP is both. Nor is this very simplified comparison available elsewhere as conveniently findable lists; other available comparisons are much more complicated. WP has an important role as a summary of more complicated material for the general user.

In fact, most of our comparison lists is of this nature: we always have similar problems as here--we have to select which daa to compare, and the data is invariably available elsewhere. But we can present it more usably. Usefulness is a valid criterion for a list. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to understand the argument. Are you saying that since this is the purpose of Wikipedia, we are allowed to violate copyright? Because this list either violates it or it doesn't, and I don't see anyone here saying it doesn't, and if so, why. --Muhandes (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CIL. And considering the fact there are no articles for every other year, Wikipedia isn't an archive of popularity contests. Ajf773 (talk) 07:33, 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. The consensus is that the game is most likely the notable thing here and covering that in an article about the author is outside our normal editing conventions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard La Ruina[edit]

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

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

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

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

Overall the article has not improved much, reads a lot like an advertisement, one recent television appearance. Article does not meet WP:GNG in my view. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: found these Las Vegas Weekly - "Book Review: 'The Natural: How to Effortlessly Attract the Women You Want" (short review), The Guardian - "I took a class on how to pick up women. I learned more about male anxiety", Washington Independent Review of Books - "Author Q&A About Love: Richard La Ruina", Forbes - "How to Master the Art of Seducation in Business and Life", that may contribute to notability? Coolabahapple (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This smacks of discrimination. In just the past days there have been articles in BBC, The Independent, The Times, The Verge, Vice, Forbes, Polygon, IGN, Gamespot, and hundreds more authority sites. His new game Super Seducer is significant news. WP:GNG is easily met. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43316676 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.172.38 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The WHOIS data on the above user, as well as the comment made on their only other edit, suggests the above editor is the subject of the article themselves. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the requirement for "significant coverage". Existence does not equal notability. The sources listed include 100 word mini book reviews, short Q&A blog posts, minor television interviews and a smattering of short articles in mainstream media that concentrate more on his "pick up technique" and lessons than himself personally. Most of the sources already listed throw up 404 not found errors. The two books he's written don't appear to reach any of the criteria for book notability. I don't think his video game would qualify either as there isn't any significant detailed commentary on it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:"not significant commentary?" Did you use google? Here is a little of the coverage from the past 2 weeks. ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13], ^[14], ^[15] and from November 2017: ^[16], ^[17], ^[18], ^[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.172.38 (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Daily Mail is not a valid argument to present here. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What these references look to show is that Super Seducer may be notable. This article being deleted would not preclude the creation of that one (there is arguably a lower threshold for video game notability, and it looks to me that the game clearly meets that threshold). The sources would not simultaneously merit an article about La Ruina and his game. What we would need is significant coverage of the subject beyond coverage of the game in reliable sources (not blogs, not opinion columns, not generally others in the same business, etc.). That coverage would need to be in depth and over a period of time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article. The refs are mostly 404 with lots of social media and trivial mentions thrown in. Some recent news coverage about a game, not enough. Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blatantly notable article. Why is the BBC, Guardian, Las Vegas Weekly, The Independent, The Times, The Verge, Vice, Forbes, Polygon, IGN, Gamespot, and half a dozen independent publishers not enough? There is even a interactive video game dedicated to him. There are also multiple sources describing his spat with feminists as well as the controversy with a Japanese conglomerate corporation. 79.67.65.52 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the subject mentioned this on Twitter. Will likely be seeing a lot of activity from anonymous/new users. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - He's a fairly well-known individual with multiple claims to fame, including a recent video game that has received a lot of publicity, a book, an appearance on Piers Morgan's show, etc. His article is just in desperate need of a rewrite. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotional article about a "pick-up artist coach". Appearing on one TV interview doesn't meet GNG, and I don't see what else here would. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:"Newsweek article yesterday with extensive quotes: ^[1], just because you don't like what he does for work doesn't mean there isn't notability. "One TV interview", no there are eleven others listed on this page ^[2], many of which are on YouTube, one more major Norwegian appearance ^[3], and very extensive coverage in Russian language where he has also starred in 2 TV series ^[4]^[5]^[6]. The article needs to be seriously updated. If you take it down it's discrimination and laziness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.172.38 (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Neutral. Mr La Ruina has been condemned by Sony who have blocked his "super seducer" game from being released on the Playstation as it is offensive and misogynistic, and promotes stalking. [10] [11] This is the main topic when searching for sources, so it should be the main focus of his article, not a small paragraph at the end. I've got no real issue if the article is deleted, but keeping it and rewriting it to a neutral point of view using proper sources will teach people that an article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced on the sources, I think this could just meet the WP:GNG guidelines, however much of the sourcing is tabloid-like and unreliable, and I am not going in-depth into every source to figure it out though. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the minor controversy does not overcome the fact that the subject is non-notable, sources are passing mentions and / or SPIP, such as the "Q&A". The article is mostly promo 'cruft, and WP:NOTSPAM applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything, he's more notable than ever considering the success of Super Seducer. That game is all over the media and Twitch. In fact, I hadn't even heard of him before the game was released and created a lot of buzz and controversy. It would make no sense to delete his page at the height of his popularity. "Clean up" the page if necessary, but deletion would be the wrong move. Aoa8212 (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 86.57.172.38 if there is a WP:COI, as suspected by Macktheknifeau's WHOIS report, then the user should state it. Additionally, I don't see how removing this article would be "discrimination." Not to be too reading into the users motivations, people can establish their notability through controversy but they can also advertise through it as well. We should consider if this all for WP:PROMO. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:10, 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 and redirect to Queer studies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign erotic[edit]

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

Article solely about coining a term that is now in limited use in academia. Before recent cleanup this was an unencyclopedic, rather promotional essay, about who has written what articles and reviews about one another's academic articles. After cleanup, most of the sourcing is to older authors that never mention the term. The majority of the writing cited is not by Indigenous writers, and not by or about Two spirit or Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Consensus on the Two spirit article was that this stuff doesn't belong there. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The "Colonization" section seems to be germane to the topic, but I suspect that few of these sources cite Driskill or use the term sovereign erotic. If that's the case, then even if they talk about similar things, conflating them is OR (unless, of course, another scholar makes the connection for us). If the headword has been discussed enough in the literature by independent scholars, and if this isn't fringe, then the article can stay—minus the OR. Otherwise, delete per the GNG or WP:FRINGE.

In the meantime, the deletion of the Driskill quote seems a bit unfortunate, as it showed the original context of the headword, and the deletion deprives the article of the closest thing it had to an unequivocal definition. —Ringbang (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I find filling Wikipedia with random phrases to be tedious and lacking in necessity. The phrase sovereign erotic has been used prior to the individual being credited with coining the term, for example it can be found in academic writing published by Deborah Miranda ^[1] and Judith Butler ^[2] so should the article stay it needs an entire rewrite so that it doesn't come off as a promotional piece. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment - I put this up for XFD for this discussion. I think there are certainly ideas worth exploring in the article, which is why I didn't completely gut it in the cleanup. But given Indigenous girl's comments above, I don't think WP is the place for it. I don't have an issue per se with some of the content I cut, but rather I am concerned about some of the personal claims and possible academic competition/credit WP may be being used for here. As there are uses that pre-date Driskell's, Driskell's claim of coining the term can't stand. I was already concerned about this last night. We can't let the 'pedia be used to advance any kind of misrepresentation here. I think it may be best, and in the interests of protecting the 'pedia, to just take any content by notable authors and put it in their articles. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- While the phrase can be found sporadically throughout academia it's certainly not noteworthy. Driskell seems to be the only one pushing the term. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given all these concerns I was Bold and removed Driskell's claim of coining the term. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queer studies, delete is also possible.Redirect to Two-spirit. I'm not sure that crediting Driskill is inappropriate - however in my BEFORE I found fairly little use of this in general - and what use there was was mainly due to Driskill's work and other authors quoting/citing/mentioning Driskill - as such, this is for the most part a single researcher concept (whether being the original coiner or not - it would seem this was mainly promoted due to Driskill ).Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Modified my !vote per comments below on redirect target which convinced me. I don't have a strong opinion on redirect vs. delete, however I think this is plausible search term and it is far from self-evident it refers to Queer Studies (and connected as well, at least in terms of inspiration, to the two spirit culture).Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Queer studies would be a better fit for the redirect. The material that's been added to, and then cut from, the Two Spirit article in the past, that seems to have been from people using the term, was strongly framed in a modern Queer Studies framework and perspective, rather than an Indigenous, Two-spirit approach. From what I can see, most of the people using this term are not Two Spirit, and not involved in the Two Spirit communities. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a phrase primarily used by one individual absolutely must be retained, I agree, the redirect should be to Queer studies. The term is not used in Two Spirit or indigenous communities. Redirecting to Two Spirit would be erroneous.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the term isn't common enough to have a clear definition or redirect topic, it shouldn't have an article. The article as-written stinks of promoting one author's research program. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: - I think the concept/theory is actually very well defined actually. In terms of redirect target - accept my apologies for suggesting a sub-optimal redirect target - Queer Studies and Two Spirits are not my expertise (but doing a BEFORE in academic literature for usage of a term - is).Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 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 merge to List of earthquakes in the British Isles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Dudley earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable event, does not meet the notability guidelines for earthquakes Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of earthquakes in the British Isles, since this earthquake is not currently included in the list. Doesn't pass Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of earthquakes in the British Isles. Marginally notable only because earthquakes of this magnitude (small as it is) in the British Isles are rare leading this one to be listed in coverage of other earthquakes in the British Isles (e.g. [12] [13]) - however it seems it is mainly covered in conjunction with other earthquakes as a previous example, so it would seem this is not independently notable of the set.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this happening, and British people couldn't stop talking about it for a few days, but it is not the largest ever in the British Isles (biggest for 12 years - not to bad), and it is not 'big' at 4.8 on the Richter scale, and it didn't damage anything. Merging with a list is fine, because there is no possible content here beyond; "there was a small earthquake, it measured 4.8 on the Richter scale and lasted for 20 seconds, the epicenter was at grid reference SO898913, and it could be felt about 300 miles away". Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. As other comments note there is not enough notability to justify an article, but it would make sense for this earthquake to be on the list. Dunarc (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The problem with putting this earthquake back into the list (which was recently drastically shortened by me) is that such standalone lists should be lists of notable topics (assuming that this is an example of the first type mentioned in WP:CSC) so for inclusion they should individually meet the criteria - to quote "This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers", which in my opinion the previous version of the list article was (~50k). I will try to think of other ways in which such non-notable events could be recorded without recreating the list as it was. We should not be trying to match the full British Geological Survey list of earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Set a Richter threshold that would leave the list with an event every 3 years or so. This particular earthquake is clearly being referenced years after it has occurred (mainly when the next quake occurs).Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable enough, the issue is that there isn't anything to write about. This earthquake got national coverage, insisting on national coverage is a reasonable criteria. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Delete as suggested. Redirecting to the list is an outdated concept. The event does not qualify for the list. Dawnseeker2000 18:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ I have no idea why this event wouldn't qualify for the list with the suggested merge. Earthquakes of lower magnitudes are on there. Suggest someone qualifies that list to events of >4.5 magnitude. SportingFlyer talk 04:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Keep The article as it stands is pretty poorly sourced, but I think it clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT; there's national diversity of sources, including lookbacks after weeks and years, and journal articles: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. SportingFlyer talk 05:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these links are to the website of the Black Country geological society, one is a local news website, the BGS paper is BGS seismologists doing what they're paid to do - resarch British earthquakes, Keele Uni has been involved in researching British earthquakes for some decades, hence their interest and finally the BBC England (not the national part of the website) report the BGS's more considered view of the event. How do these demonstrate diversity? Mikenorton (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point of WP:DIVERSE is that multiple different sources are available to discuss the event at hand. While I have linked several sources that would be related to each other, this article continues to be mentioned in other articles about earthquakes even to this day, in a wide range of news sources - these were not the only two news sites to discuss the 'quake, and the local news article discussed it years after the fact. The BGS is not the sole source of earthquake news in Britain. SportingFlyer talk 01:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The earthquake notability guideline linked above seems incredibly strange as well, as most guidelines for inclusion include articles in which GNG is assumed, and then articles that aren't automatically notable but nevertheless meet WP:GNG. The guideline pointed to doesn't include WP:GNG anywhere. Does anything else override WP:GNG that's not WP:NOT on a consistent basis? SportingFlyer talk 05:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines have been in use for nearly 8 years now - they were drawn up after a series of contentious deletion debates. If you think that they are in need of revision then open a discussion on the relevant page. This is not the place for that. Mikenorton (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can assume the WP:GNG overrides that guideline, which is merely an explanatory guide on what earthquakes are considered relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought. It's just curious that an article passing WP:GNG could be considered not notable by a WikiProject, which another voter mentioned above. SportingFlyer talk 01:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors (even me) rarely correctly communicate their full thoughts, I don't think anyone above is solely relying on the earthquakes guideline, but rather neglecting to mention WP:GNG, as it is very common not to mention it if there is a more specific guideline (like saying "fails WP:NPOL", when it by rights should be "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL".) this really is a overall failing in the guidelines caused by the fact they are a patchwork of different bits written by different people at different times with varying consensuses, and varying adherence to the guidelines since. Hardly the easiest framework to work with. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Does this article have encyclopedic value? If your answer is yes, please explain. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 02:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As the largest earthquake in the UK for a good few years, and as an earthquake in a seismically stable region with few perceptible earthquakes, and as the event was covered by national news and mentioned internationally, documenting the event is of great encyclopedic value. But don't mistake that as meaning there ought to be a standalone article, that's another matter. Prince of Thieves (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response OK, I didn't make myself clear as I should have. My intention was to say that encyclopedic value and having an article mean the same thing. PoT, I want to respond to some of your ideas:

1) There are many perceptible earthquakes in the UK. Did you look at the list prior to the trim? Please count them for me and post the total here.

2) The news don't know what they're talking about when it comes to earthquakes. They never mention intensity. See Mikenorton's post about magnitude and intensity below. Going forward, magnitude is not going to be the standard by which we decide whether an EQ is notable. That practice has to stop right now.

3) What is it about this earthquake specifically that makes it stand out? If it's worthy of including, as a stand-alone article or as a list entry, there should be something to say on it. All I'm seeing is 1,000 characters/160 words saying where it happened, what magnitude it was, that there was no impact, and that there was a small aftershock that followed. I don't see anything encyclopedic about that. We can't just list events because they happened.

Dawnseeker2000 01:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Fair enough, I can't say I disagree. (there is about 120 on the list). I think documenting this event is of encyclopedic value, however I can't see why that should involve a standalone article, when it could be part of a list (as I point out above, below and as you mention). It was the biggest for 12 years in the region, and in my view, that alone is good enough to put it on a list currently filled with all kinds of unverified size medieval earth movements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's 224 on the list as restored to its former (and sadly current) indiscriminate glory - what is really odd in that list is the number of 19th-century earthquakes, 80 of them, the medieval ones are positively sparse in comparison. I attempted to shorten it to this, with 36 earthquakes, all with a decent claim for notability. Also I have proposed a way to include other events that will never get their own articles at Talk:List_of_earthquakes_in_the_British_Isles#Draft_summary_for_events_not_notable_enough_for_the_main_list as mentioned below. Mikenorton (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm completely uninvolved with the earthquakes WikiProject, but as Prince of Thieves wrote above, even though the earthquake was marginal in size and damage to property, the fact it was a unique and well-documented event makes it an event a person who lived through it is likely to look up. Also as per Prince of Thieves, this yes has nothing to do with the requirements of the actual AfD - I assume you're taking a straw poll. SportingFlyer talk 02:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - It was the largest for just 12 years, at least the 2008 England earthquake was the largest in England for more than 50 years, that gives it more of a claim I think. It was notable locally, barely nationally and not globally. There was no significant damage or injuries. There's one of these about every 10 years in the UK. I've suggested a way for such earthquakes to be recorded in the List of earthquakes in the British Isles, see Talk:List_of_earthquakes_in_the_British_Isles#Draft_summary_for_events_not_notable_enough_for_the_main_list. Mikenorton (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or as a 2nd preference merge (not redirect) to the list. UK is a region where earthquakes are rare. Certainly in global terms this is a minnow. It looks as if in UK we sometimes keep articles for UK earthquakes of 4.5 or above. I will add that I remember the earthquake: it woke me up. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What matters in an earthquake is generally the intensity of shaking, not the magnitude, that's what causes the damage and injuries. There was an earthquake in Barrow-on-Furness in 1865 that has an estimated magnitude of 2.2, but due to its very shallow hypocenter caused maximum shaking of VIII (severe), compared to a maximum of V for the Dudley event (moderate), magnitude cut-offs don't work too well for that reason. Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not by itself. The information is useful in relation to other earthquakes in the region as a regionally unusual event - but really the sole interest here is on the level of "strongest in X years" sort of information.Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally that's why I feel like it would fit on a list, even if not really the right sort of topic for a standalone article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:00, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soumodeep Ghosh Chowdhury[edit]

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

Not enough sources are available to indicate notability, with the article going far too deep into the subject's personal life. The name comes up in several news items as a reporter, but their work as a filmmaker is just not verifiable. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete delete this article. Soumodeep Ghosh Chowdhury now focus on filmmaking.Famous indian actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui appriciated him also encourged him. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudipan Chakraborty (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31812&articlexml=NAWAZUDDIN-SIDDIQUI-INSPIRES-YOUNG-FILMMAKER-19082016106003

Delete per nom, Fails WP:CREATIVE and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not adequately referenced (never mind the unencyclopedic nature of the article as written).Orenburg1 (talk) 09:45, 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 and redirect to Dubailand#Zones. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Kingdom[edit]

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

Only primary sources are listed, and the stub is written like an advertisement. The park's construction stalled over 5 years ago, and I was unable to locate any solid secondary sources confirming that the project will ever resume. Propose the article be deleted until better sources turn up. GoneIn60 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the stub is written like an advertisement. Ergo, the article is too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I can't find any reliable sources about this place, the "official website" is not registered, and the content itself is copied directly from a wikia article. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, per the Wikia's edit history, the wikia article was copied from Wikipedia in 2012, and at first included a link to the wikipedia article, which was deleted in the only subsequent edit there. The wikipedia article was started in 2009. Please do note the Dubailand.wikia.com article is part of a wiki about Dubailand, which I argue below is the natural target for a redirect. --Doncram (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I've never edited it, this has been on my watchlist for over a year and I've searched several times for evidence that this is even under construction and failed. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "news" search on "Sahara Kingdom" yields hits from multiple sources, including:
- - World's Strangest Theme Parks feature crocodiles, dwarves ... Mirror.co.uk-May 19, 2016 "... which aims to educate visitors about sex. Elsewhere there are plans for new £40billion park in the Dubai desert into six zones, one of which will be called The Sahara Kingdom, and another in France based all around the exploits of Napoleon. Here are the most unusual places to visit around the world."
  - Dubailand development to be ready in two years / Construction Week Online-Mar 16, 2014 "A senior executive at Saudi's Al Hokair Group says its long-awaited Al Sahara Kingdom hotel and entertainment project in Dubailand should open in “a couple of years”. The Al Sahara Kingdom has been master-planned over a 50mn ft2 area in Dubailand , the delayed real estate development backed by ..."
  - Dubailand project expected to open in 2016 / Hotelier Middle East-Mar 18, 2014 Story image for "Sahara Kingdom" from T"he National
  - UAE looks to capitalise on all the fun of theme parks / The National-May 8, 2016 "But the global financial crisis of 2008 put a stop to many of these plans with dozens of projects including Universal Studios Dubai and Sahara Kingdom suspended. So what has changed this time around? “The difference this time around is that the plans are being spearheaded by the Governments of Dubai ..."
  - Saudi firm flags 2016 for Dubailand project opening / ArabianBusiness.com-Mar 14, 2014 "A senior executive at Saudi's Al Hokair Group says its long-awaited Al Sahara Kingdom hotel and entertainment project in Dubailand should open in “a couple of years”. The Al Sahara Kingdom has been master-planned over a 50 million sq ft area in Dubailand, the delayed real estate development backed ..."
  - Why entertainment is the key to Dubailand's fortunes / Emirates 24/7-Apr 29, 2012 "The Al Sahara Kingdom has been master-planned over a 50 million square feet area in Dubailand. The project is set to include two four-star hotels – to be run by Al Hokair-owned Mena Hotels & Resorts, an indoor theme park, restaurants, residential areas and a retail souk. A senior official of a Dubai-based ..."
  - Saudi developer set to restart Dubailand project / Construction Week Online-Mar 3, 2012 "Saudi Arabia-based developer Al Hokair Group is planning to resume construction on its stalled Al Sahara Kingdom hotel and entertainment project in Dubailand in 2013, its deputy CEO has said. The Al Sahara Kingdom has been master-planned over a 4.6 hectare area in Dubailand , the delayed real ..."
  - Interview: Saudi Arabia's Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al Hokair / ArabianBusiness.com-Apr 5, 2014 "Asked about the project in 2012, Al Hokair deputy CEO Sami AM Al Hokair told ITP publication Hotelier Middle East that construction on Al Sahara Kingdom would resume in 2013 with phase one to open in 2014. Two years later and Mishal Abdul Mohsen Al Hokair now suggests the opening is more likely ..."
  - KSA's MENA Hotels and Resorts means business / Hotelier Middle East-May 16, 2012

This seems like fairly substantial coverage about a plan which hasn't yet been implemented. I dunno how to !vote here. --Doncram (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though it was reported as being built in 2014, it appears that the construction was suspended by 2016. Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect [was "Merge"] The 2016 "UAE looks to capitalise on all the fun of theme parks" article cited by Burroughs above seems to document something big. There surely needs to be an article or list-article about theme parks in UAE, how about Theme parks in the United Arab Emirates (currently a redlink). Merging/redirecting coverage about Sahara Kingdom into that would be clearly superior to deleting it outright. We are supposed to search for wp:ATD. --Doncram (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: update Unknown to all participants here, it turns out there is a world-wide list system covering theme parks, i.e. List of theme parks -> List of amusement parks. I created a redirect from Theme parks in the United Arab Emirates to the already-existing section, List of amusement parks in Asia#United Arab Emirates, which has a subsection for Dubai, which already listed numerous parks and a few planned-but-not-yet-completed projects. I added Sahara Kingdom there. However, as stated in its article Sahara Kingdom is a planned park within larger Dubailand, which has a longish article including a passage on Sahara Kingdom which includes pretty much everything in the current separate article. Redirecting to that passage seems appropriate. Also the Dubai subsection in the list-article (accessible by List of amusement parks in Dubai) also now includes a subsubsection for planned or cancelled projects, which also would be an okay redirect target. But Dubailand appears to be the better target. There is coverage about Sahara Kingdom in above sources whether or not GNG is met (for there to be a separate article), and the project also could revive, so it makes sense to cover it in the parent organization/park article.

People, please note that we are intended to find alternatives to deletion, where possible, which is the case here. Outright deletion is not appropriate, as that does not serve readers seeing mention of this place and searching for it, and it would lose contributions history of development about the topic, if/when a standalone article is again warranted. I first !voted "Merge" above, but change that to "Redirect" now, as there is not substantial info in the article which is not already included in the target (Dubailand). --Doncram (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources found above might support redirection as a suitable alternative to deletion, but it's important to take into consideration that Dubailand as a whole is still a project in the midst of a decade-long struggle. Some of these sources are simply stating Sahara Kingdom as a passing mention without much detail. How many of the announcements seen in the press were ideas that were modified or cancelled? Is the current state of the whole theme park still uncertain? While Dubailand may technically deserve its own article, I'm not sure we need redirects for each of the proposed elements and ideas within that project. Doing so could rub up against WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, and we want to avoid the unintended consequence of allowing something in that may never receive any closure in secondary sources. In the amusement park world, this happens a lot. You hear a lot about proposals that never solidify, or when they do, it's demise/removal may never get reported. A redirect isn't the end of the world in this situation, but deletion may not be either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dubailand#Zones - this is WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:41, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Index of standards articles[edit]

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

Arbitrary and outdated list Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a list, it's an Indice, which was a early form of categorisation. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is arbitrary about it, and why is being outdated a reason for deletion? --Michig (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a list to me. There are hundreds of articles about standards. These are just sorted alphabetically - a mixture of weights and measures, accounting, railways and computer protocols. The article as a whole does not contain any useful information. It's just a directory. Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the now mostly defunct Portal:Contents/Indices. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no compelling reason given not to keep. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks lie a valid part of an old portal or something, which is fine as a list. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it was useful once it isn't now.Rathfelder (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are several hundred of these, maybe more, and I feel a wider discussion, or maybe a formal proposal would be the most efficient way of dealing with them if they need dealing with. There is some kind of portal/navigational system here. In the meantime there is no policy based reason I feel comfortable with to delete this one. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIRECTORY Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not help at all, we don't apply WP:DIRECTORY to categories. Nor to lists of related articles. And WP:INDICES is about as helpful as a glass hammer. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that this list is not a category. It's a poorly conceived directory, a list of loosely associated topics Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a category, no. It is, however, a navigational aid similar to a category. The arguments begin made for deletion here would apply to every Index article. If we want to stop having such articles, an RfC or other wide-ranging discussion to do away with such would be the way to go. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought something like that was probably the situation here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplicates category system with no added value, more maintenance overhead. Sandstein 10:32, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Academy (San Francisco)[edit]

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

Unremarkable closed school. Only sources appear to be videos Nightfury 09:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find the type of coverage which shows that it would pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school in a major North American metro area it is all but certain to pass WP:NPOSSIBLE. Given that it shut down 40 years ago, online sources are going to be more difficult to come by, and I suspect that the nominator hasn't undertaken a search of paper newspapers from the time period in which the school existed or considered this possibility as the much misused RfC also suggested. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show that coverage exists to pass WP:GNG as TonyBallioni said above. Störm (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Our guidelines and guidance on this require us to consider the possibility that they exist, and when that is probable, that is a good enough reason to keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So in a reliable encyclopedia you just gamble and pray for sources? The Banner talk 11:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The latest school RfC made it clear that there was no consensus to change the practice of considering all high schools as if they were notable. This is not a statement about actual notability, either in the special meaning used in WP or the meaning used by everybody else in the world, but a statement about the necessary practice of avoiding the thousands of consequent school article debates, which experience in past years proved, will result in more fr less rnadom results depending on who shows up at AfD. the correlates it that we do not keep but merge elementary schoolarticles--there used to be several debates a day on these also, resulting in the random keeping of articles.

This is not a question of WP:V or reliability. The facts in the article are verified by thesources, which are sufficiently reliable for that purpose. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DGG. --Doncram (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A verified secondary school. To go down the path of scrutinizing the tens of thousands of secondary schools in the world is a really bad path for WP to go down.--Oakshade (talk) 03:21, 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. Other than the article's author, unanimous consensus to delete as WP:OR and/or WP:ESSAY. If somebody wants to pursue the sock-puppet claim, that's best done at WP:SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagetae[edit]

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

nominated version of the article; etymology-section has been removed after deletion-proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:POV. The whole article is an original research and Gioferri (talk · contribs)'s agenda to create Altaic or Turkic origin for many Eurasian peoples. Look at the cited sources and how the mentioned editor interpreted them: Herodotus, Genesis, Jeremia, Darius - Behistun Inscriptions, Avesta - Vendidad, Ptolemaeus - Geographia, Strabo, Erodotus and etc. The article creator only cited one modern scholar (Giampietro Fabbri) and that cited historian's works don not match with the rest of article because the whole article is Gioferri's POV. The user even uploaded this made-up and bogus map, completely unsourced and just based on his pov: [20] Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the cited source "Fabbri" is neither historian nor linguist, he's an engineer. Please see Talk:Proto-Indo-European_homeland#Fabbri and [21]. This article is pure bogus, using WP for promoting an agenda as I mentioned it in my rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support' - bullshit WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support More Turkomania by yet another obvious Tirgil34 sock. As mentioned, Fabbri teaches industrial engineering and is not a scholar with any relevant credentials, and the article completely depends on Fabbri's work (for which "fringe" is a euphemistic description, it's pure fantasy), but is misleadingly designed to make it seem like it depends on multiple sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But, then, what about Getae and Massagetae? -The Gnome (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability trumps bad article-quality. If the subjects of those other articles, about the Getae and the Massagetae, are notable enough to remain in Wikipedia, then how can we strike off Sagetae? IMVHO , it is a very badly written text (no sources, possible OR, etc); but if our main case against it is that it's badly written, then we should tag it for clean up and give it some time for improvement. Agendas or no agendas. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, use of unreliable PRIMARY sources (ancient historians and the bible), and WP:POVFORK of Thyssagetae and Massagetae that this article attempts to speculate on their origins.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speculative pseudo-history doesn't really belong here, and without the extensive etymology section, its just a dictionary definition of a specialist word. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also the sources are suspect, if the author of the sources used is also the inventor of the word, then there is a WP:GNG failing as well. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article can surely be improved. However, as I understand, the main problem is that the author of the source that I cite, Giampietro Fabbri, also has a degree in Engineering. I think that the fact that Fabbri has a degree in Engineering is relevant as that he also has black hair, a blue car or a white dog. I have read the Fabbri’s theory and I have found it interesting and consistent with a large amount of data which the author presents. I have cited part of this theory in a concise way, clearly reporting the sources which are available also online. No user in this page points out discrepancies in the reported theory.
As I understand, some user believes that I am a sock of an user called Tirgil34 since I would be affected by Turkomania and I would promote the thesis of an Altaic or Turk origin for may Eurasian peoples. On the contrary, I cite the Fabbri’s theory which demonstrates an Indo-European paternity of Altaic peoples.
As I am new as Wikipedia editor, I can not understand whether “bullshit” has a particular meaning in this context. However, it seems offensive and not a constructive comment aimed to improve the article and Wikipedia.
I have drawn the map trying to summarise the main informations given by the cited sources. I will check whether I misunderstood them.
I will try to modify the article taking your constructive comments into account.--Gioferri (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioferri: see Bullshit, a slang profanity term meaning "nonsense", especially as a rebuke in response to communication or actions viewed as deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabbri's theory might (and I'm not sure about this) have a place (a very short mention) in Thyssagetae and Massagetae. However a standalone topic (a speculative ancestor group with a single proponent) this does not make.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We might have a clear case of WP:DONTBITE, here. :-) Let us all gear down. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the etymology-section of the article, per non-WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank Prince of Thieves for explaining the meaning of Bullshit. However, I can not understand what has no sense in the original version of the article Sagetae. Joshua Jonathan could explain it in order to let the article be improved.--Gioferri (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joshua Jonathan deleted the section that had been entitled “Etymology” since he believes that sources are not reliable, but he does not specify why he believe this. The only motivation for considering unreliable the source that I find expressed in this page is that Fabbri has a degree in engineering. Universities are used to confer degrees “honoris causa” to the people for the quality of the research they performed in a field in which they had no academic degree. This demonstrate that also who has no degree in a particular sector can perform good quality and reliable research in that field. The reliability of a source is not determined by the author’s biography, but, depending on the kind of source, by its consistence, coherence and method. These are to be taking into consideration to evaluate the reliability of the source, but I do not read nothing about these in this page.
The deletion of the etymology section by Joshua Jonathan seems to be an agenda to cancel theories unreliable from his personal point of wiew. I do not know whether Wikipedia uses a particolar code to define that, but I believe that it is not correct. Instead of deleting the section, Joshua Jonathan could improve it adding other theories that he knows and believes more reliable. I will try to do a similar improvement as soon as I can.--Gioferri (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained at Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Fabbri, which you seem to ignore. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any explaination in that talk. You just reported some parts of Fabbri’s source adding some typographical errors, without pointing out what do you believes incorrect or unreliable and explaining why. I did not add any comment in that page yet since I am still trying to understand what was wrong in my edit. The only motivations for reverting my edit that I can find in that talk are that Fabbri also has a degree in enginering and I am supposed to be a sock of a previous user who was called Tirgil34. Only reading this article for deletion page I learn that Tirgil34 was a turkomaniac who wanted to diffuse his ideas on a Altaic or Turkic origin for many Eurasian peoples. As I have already written, I wonder of this supposition, since I reported Fabbri’s theory which is in contrast with those ideas, considering Altaic peoples as derived by Indo-Europeans. Perhaps, I did not report this part of Fabbri’s theory enough clearly due to necessity of being concise as probably I neither have been.--Gioferri (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Icewhiz believes that the article Sagetae is a fork of Massagetae and Thyssagetae. However, there are at least two points of view, 1) considering the names Massagetae and Thyssagetae as compound of Sagetae, 2) considering these names as having a different derivation, may be as compound of Getae. From the first point of view the main argument should be Sagetae while Massagetae and Thyssagetae should be treated as derivated. From the second point of view the name Sagetae means nothing. Including Massagetae and Thyssagetae in subsections of an article Sagetae would favour the first point of view. Having no article Sagetae would favour the second one. To be impartial, Massagetae, Thyssagetae, Sagetae, and Getae had to be treated as subsections of an unique article. But how to entitle it? Peoples having a name ending with getae? Perhaps is better to have an article for each of these names with links to the others.--Gioferri (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioferri: a combined article would be a good idea. As the title, you pick the common name, which is the one used most often, or best covered in sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves: I agree with you. A combined article could be a good idea. However, I had already tried to add an edit in Massagetae article, but some users reverted it immediately. I though that they were vandalisers, but, as I wrote, in this page I understand that they believe that I am a sock of a turkomaniac.--Gioferri (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well you could try and convince them otherwise. Or just save a copy of this page, don't worry about it and go edit other topics for a while, then come back with a fresh perspective. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves: I will take your advice. I will reconsider this discussion after time.--Gioferri (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Until some sources are added referring the the views of modern academic commentators, I must regard this as WP:OR, trying to draw together two distinct Scythian tribes as if they were one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Do you consider reliable only the sources of Academics? --Gioferri (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: However, you probably read the current version of Massagetae article, while, as I understand, the Etymology section is mainly under discussion, which has been deleted by Joshua Jonathan. In that section it was clearly specified that Massagetae and Thyssagetae were different tribes just bordering on each other and having different customs. --Gioferri (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smells like WP:OR. Getae seems to be the real root here, and already mentions Massagetae and Thyssagetae. The Sagetae term only shows up in searches because the Google book OCR output has the hyphenated word Mas-sagetae. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TimTempleton: Actually, you can find the term "sagetae" in internet at least in Encyclopaedia Britannica https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Brahui "Sajdi, another Brahui tribal name, is Scythian, the principal clan of which tribe is the Saga, both names being identifiable with the Sagetae and Saki of ancient writers." --Gioferri (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that "Sagetae" does not appear anywhere in the current edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. However the 1911 edition^[22] states clearly that it is a anarchic name for the Saga tribe of the Brahui people. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:58, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eri Suzuki[edit]

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

Yet another credits dump that pretends to be an article. Stub in JP Wiki. MizukaS (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: What about sources such as this, this, and this, among others? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Narutolovehinata5, but I do not speak Japanese. I still fail to see how the subject's notability can be established on the basis of English-language media. If the case can be made strictly on the basis of Japanese sources, we will have to first accept that they are reliable, e.g. not "fan sites", "gossip mags", etc. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: Two of the sources I mentioned, Da Vinci News, and Mynavi, are considered reliable Japanese sources and are frequently used as a source for anime information in both the Japanese and English Wikipedias. Da Vinci News is also published by Kadokawa Corporation, which isn't into publishing fan sites or gossip from what I heard. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Kadokawa Shoten publishes manga novels and magazines. Without some serious evidence, I would not consider any of its publications to be a reliable source; my first guess would be "promotional material for the company's product" even if indirectly. Per Bloomberg, Mynavi Corporation operates "an information website primarily for job-placement and educational advancement." We could perhaps use its content for data such as number of movies, titles, etc, in anime articles, but as an overall reliable source? That would take a bit of convincing. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article currently needs to be expanded and be more than a credits dump, but she clearly passes WP:ENT for having main or lead roles in several anime such as Girlish Number, Yuuna and the Haunted Hot Springs, Katana Maidens ~ Toji No Miko, Amanchu!, Dimension W, and Flying Witch, among others. In Flying Witch for example, she is one of the three main characters. Finally, a simple Google search would have showed that she's had plenty of coverage in Japanese sources. @MizukaS: next time, when you nominate a Japanese voice actor's article for deletion, before nomination, please make sure to search their Japanese name, and to check at least their ANN page, to see if they are notable after all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, several major roles. Can you stop nominating these? Most of them are kept which should indicate to you that you're wasting time. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can have an opinion, but you should know that starting an AFD via Twinkle takes less than 1 minute. Whether or not I'm "wasting" time has nothing to do with you. Seven of my nominations managed to get deleted in the end since I joined, so please be quiet if you're going to be rude. Not to mention that not everyone agrees with you. The first vote was delete, so that already stands to reason that you don't speak for everyone. You may disagree, but please mind your attitude. MizukaS (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MizukaS has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sk8erPrince: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination by a sock who is now indef blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 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 keep. There has been some good improvements to this article since its nomination. In its current state, editors agree that it is a keep. (non-admin closure) talk to !dave 18:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Sadao[edit]

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

While accomplished, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show she meets WP:GNG. She is quoted a lot, about events at the museum where she works, some brief mentions, and several primary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a bit to this bio, including a key fact: she holds a named, endowed directorship at Penn, and therefore meets WP:PROF, Criterion 5. Such academic notability is is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually, that position is neither "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor", which would indeed fulfill #5. Also, neither of the citations provided actually says that the position is how you describe it, instead stating simply that she is the director of art institute. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Onel: if you actually look it up, it is not a named or endowed chairship, nor it it a named professorship as described in WP:PROF /5. WP:PROF is not met by this point.104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed or mis-read the ArtNews source, which says, "Dietrich has been a longtime supporter of the museum, and led a capital campaign in 2005 by endowing the Daniel W. Dietrich II position now occupied by Sadao." Academic institutions hire librarians and museum directors into endowed chairs, even though the positions may technically be classified as administrative, rather than as teaching faculty. The point is that a named endowed chair for an administrator has the same prestige and honor as a named endowed chair for a faculty member. See, for example, Deborah A. Carver. At any rate, Megalibrarygirl has provided additional RS, showing Sadao also fulfills GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are stretching WP:PROF to include administrative positions, which most profs I know would disagree with! But, as you say, it is probably moot.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the ICA is owned by Penn, and the directorship is named [23], I agree with with Grand'mere Eugene. However, I also believe she passes GNG. I was able to turn up quite a lot of meaty information on her and added it to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an acceptable article at this point; meets WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passing both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:53, 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 per WP:SNOW. Obviously passes WP:NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Elbouzedi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable footballer. Recreation of the article that was deleted 2 months ago. Dial911 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note since the previous deletion discussion, he has played a couple of games for Inverness Caledonian Thistle in the Scottish Championship which is listed as a professional league. So is the club a professional club, because if so according to soccerway he has now played for them since.NZFC^(talk) 06:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he has now played in Championship (second tier) games. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are no citations or external links, but he clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL according to this, [24]. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - made his professional debut on 13 March (ie prior to this nomination) - respectful reminder of WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 13:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just want to add another comment but can be discussed after this AFD instead if not appropriate. I can't find anywhere that the play is known as Zak, I have found a Zach on the Rep of Ireland page but I feel a name change for the page to Zachary Elbouzedi is called for. NZFC^(talk) 07:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for ICT in a FPL so meets WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can we consider either delaying AfD or draftifying articles about soccer players who have recently signed with fully professional league teams? This article could have been kept the first time. It reminds me of the Kyle Duncan (soccer) AfD: closed eight days before Duncan played MLS; draftified (almost deleted as there were only two who !voted to draftify against five "deletes"); a week later someone created a duplicate article (instead of moving the draft); the two articles were merged. Now this article was deleted, a few weeks later is a clear keep. Can't we just have a bit of patience with marginal articles, and thus save time for more productive work? See WP:BUILDWP. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that lots of people sign for fully professional teams, but then don't play for them. So we'd just be leaving all of them to rot in draftspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this is a mainspace article. We simply don't create articles in anticipation of notability. Given the already accepted low level of notability required for NFOOTY, people certainly shouldn't be creating mainspace articles on players who don't obviously satisfy GNG when they fail footy and to be honest probably shouldn't be creating draft articles either. Fenix down (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right, generally speaking. In this case, Elbouzedi missed the early part of the season due to a pre-season injury. When the previous version was deleted, he was already working his way back from injury by playing in Scottish League Two, and he made his debut in Scottish Championship just four weeks later. A BBC report cited in the original article quoted the team manager stating that he would compete for the team when he was healthy. Nobody commented on this in the original AfD (including me), and this seems to have been a decisive oversight. There isn't a shortage of draftspace as far as I know, so someone could have cited WP:COMMONSENSE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:35, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia–Republic of Macedonia relations[edit]

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

This page, at the time named Macedonia–Indonesia relations, was deleted via AFD (discussion here) back in 2010. It was apparently userfied then moved to mainspace. It hasn't changed much from the deleted version, though it'd be stretch to say it's "substantially identical", hence this AfD rather than WP:G4. At any rate, LibStar (talk · contribs)'s rationale for the previous AfD nomination--"whilst it can be verified that these countries have diplomatic contact. The fact that Indonesia recognises Macedonia is covered here Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#International_recognition. this [gnews search] shows no significant coverage of bilateral relations, most of it is mulitlateral."--still applies, as does the reasoning behind my previous delete !vote.[25] Oh and 6 of the 8 unique refs are now deadlinks. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as distinctly lacking in notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails WP:GNG. the agreements like double taxation are very standard. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no clear reason for their to be a significant tie between the two countries based on size and location. Not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, and although there are the treaties, they are relatively irrelevant because there is no wider diplomatic relationship. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - are $135 million in trade and two offical visits since 2000 enough to prove notability? Bearian (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no. Indonesia's total annual trade is $326 billion. therefore trade with Macedonia represents a paltry 0.04% to Indonesia. LibStar (talk) 18:19, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Mo Kio Bus Depot (SBS Transit)[edit]

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

Non-notable bus depot, all information about it is either by SBS Transit or are fanpages. Thus, most likely fails GNG. R22-3877 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:NOTCATALOG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another bus station, nothing to suggest that it is notable.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment any differences with this article as well: Ang Mo Kio Bus Depot (SMRT Buses)? Ajf773 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In what manner, may I ask? They are apparently located at different locations, but are near one another. R22-3877 (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks equally notable/non-notable, just wondered it it's worth bundling it? Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bundled. R22-3877 (talk)
By the way Delete as non notable bus station, run of the mill, just nothing special about it at all. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like more of them are fond of Delete. Many of the bus terminals in Singapore had removed their pages, others will be the next to go - Lim Chu Kang Bus Terminal and Tuas Bus Terminal will be one of them. SBS3800P (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is similarly non-notable, and thus also fails GNG:

Might as well delete all the bus garage pages / bus terminal pages. It fails GNG and non-notable. SBS3800P (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or redirect) to List of bus stations in Singapore per WP:ATD. While it may not be individually notable, a bus depot is a public transport landmark. Collectively, these play an important role in a city. At the very least, a list of these should be kept which will be useful. As we already have an article about a list, I think we can merge. If there is contention about a merge and what content to merge, at I would request a redirect which preserves the history.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since in Singapore context, a bus depot is more like a bus garage than a bus station, so I don't see redirecting the article to List of bus stations in Singapore being relevant. R22-3877 (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say bus station is actually an umbrella term. A subheading of bus depot is fine and can be included in the article. The reason I say is because bus depots (particularly if they house more than 100 buses) are fairly large structures which stay over time. Considering that we have articles for every single railway station, a bus depot would be equally significant. I am not arguing for a separate article but I think a redirecting to a list is fine. A list of bus depots in Singapore would be informative to readers as well. Currently we only have the List of bus stations in Singapore as an umbrella article, so I would prefer to redirect it there. In the future is someone does research, they could potentially create a new "List of bus depots in Singapore"--DreamLinker (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come to think of it, a list of bus depots would be interesting, particularly if the data could be presented in a tabular format with the opening dates, bus capacity, location, owner and other information. That would be helpful and serve the purpose of an encyclopaedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A depot is not notable because it houses buses.Charles (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am curious is there is anybody else who is specifically opposed to redirection to List_of_bus_stations_in_Singapore#Depots_and_bus_parks (or any other article). I myself do not support it staying as an independent article but I do want to keep a redirect with the history preserved. Considering that WP:Redirects are cheap, I don't see a problem with this.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the UK atleast bus depots are where buses are maintained and stored .... so if this is the same in Singapore then there's absolutely nothing notable about it, If on the other hand it's a bus station then it could be notable however nothing on Google's coming up for me so this either way fails GNG, I object to redirecting as nothing needs preserving, We don't preserve crap like this at all. –Davey2010^Talk 04:22, 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. Consensus leans heavily to delete. Add in the privacy concerns of someone who is marginally notable in a best-case scenario, and the case for delete becomes more clear. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiki Ohmura[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Yoshiki Ohmura

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

I am the article subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd agree with the nominator on the WP:GNG failure, even if I assume the nominator isn't the article subject. SportingFlyer talk 04:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not notable as a racing driver but is notable as a Swiss banker and meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been expanded since the nomination, and Ohmura is notable for his career in finance. Edwardx (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frederic Marino may be notable, but not this man.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per the sources provided. We don't delete people's articles just because they want us to, especially when they can't prove they are who they say they are. Smartyllama (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I am both the nominator and subject of this article, and requested the delegation as my work as an employee or starting my own independent firm is not notable in regards to be included here. The article added after my nomination was factually incorrect (the link was because of my previous employer), which can be verified against other articles on the same issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi1975 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's delete vote struck. You can't vote twice. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, I believe he is correct, the misconduct issue was related to the subjects boss, as a bank worker the subject was mentioned in some court documents but was in no way indicated to be involved. How this should be mentioned, if at all, well be a BLP issue, but since this article is non-notable I can't see much point in fixing it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are factually correct there. The Times say "FMCP [the complainant] argues that Mr Marino misappropriated the money with the help of Yoshiki Ohmura, a Swiss racing driver who ran the structured investment arm of GAM, a $76 billion hedge fund subsidiary of Julius Baer. Mr Ohmura is also a defendant in the case. He allegedly helped to draw up the "introducer fee" contract between GAM and Ironfly." He may be completely innocent of course but his alleged role seems more than minor and significant enough for The Times to comment on in detail. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably about right, if this is kept (somehow) that could almost be pasted into the article, but really I think it would belong in an article about GAM regardless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for failing WP:GNG as well as WP:NSPORT. We should also take into account the possibility that WP:BLPKIND applies. -The Gnome (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles about business-people are generally non-notable unless well covered in secondary sources. I would say that this a fairly low level/middle management swiss banker who isn't a major figurehead and whose work is not notable. The times coverage is a mention about the misdealings of a company he works for and his boss who was probably corrupt [26]. Bloomberg routinely lists bankers and does not establish notability. hedgefundsclub.com etc are not in my view reliable sources and the FT article is barely a mention. His activity as a racing driver is not even professional, let alone at a higher level, people are not notable for their hobbies that are not covered by reliable sources. I will totally ignore the possibility of this being the subject asking for deletion because the correct venue for that is via an OTRS procedural nomination. However the nominator is correct that this biography is not notable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he is so private could you please explain the existence of the HFC page which discusses his motor racing, his business activities and his family, and was clearly done with his agreement, the interview with the Financial Times (agree the other FT ref is minor), and his involvement with the television series Make it your Race of which he says "I’m one of the judges and the coach for the Swiss team. The show was a big success and broadcast in many countries." Here is one of the professionally filmed publicity videos he did https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yR0QLe2Qa8 Here is the Ferrari driver page for him: http://races.ferrari.com/en/corse-clienti/drivers/yoshiki-ohmura/ There are numerous other publicity photos and videos on the web. All look professionally done. He doesn't seem that private to me. Isn't it more likely that he has had an attack of privacy since receiving adverse press coverage? As for being some sort of minor figure, he is stated to be the CEO of two companies. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well so are tens of thousands of people that want or don't want articles. Dozens of article on people who are CEO's, hedge fund people, minor sports players and people that briefly appeared in TV shows are deleted every day, and this reverse psychology thing should really be ignored. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 10:22, 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 redirect to Emperor discography#EPs. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the Shadows Rise[edit]

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

The article is void of any reliable sources and for good reason--none readily exist! From what I could dig up, the EP was released in a very limited run so an appearance on a chart is highly unlikely. For me, it is an obvious failure of GNG and NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You think this basic four-sentence stub is promotional? Promoting an EP that has been unavailable for decades? How so, exactly? --Michig (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emperor discography#EPs per WP:ATD and as a plausible search term. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to meet GNG and NALBUM. Lack of coverage by third party reliable sources. An article should merely be edited for tone and not deleted. desmay (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emperor discography#EPs. Note that there is another AfD open right now for a different early EP by the same band, but that one has gained a little more influence and media notice due to its place in metal history. This one, on the other hand, has been chopped up and re-released multiple times to the point where it has become invisible for all but the most hardcore fans, so it can be mentioned briefly at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Letter To God[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I made the error of !voting weak keep for this in 2007, and it closed as non-consensus. Looking more closely than I did then at thinks like promotionalism think it's really both A7 and G11--a straightforward advertisement. I cannot find any additional sources,but it's a very difficult search phrase. . DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with DGG. This is an advertisement, and as such has no place on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for starters since we have a legal determination that God does not have an address([27]) (got to this in my BEFOREing - was in reader comments). I'll note however that "God, Israel" is a valid postal address [28] - and actually does get delivered (perhaps the Nebraska state senator should've brought this all up). However this particular website (in private competition with the Israeli postal service (whose activities in this regard actually might be notable, though not mentioned at present in Placing notes in the Western Wall, though it is in Israel Postal Company#Letters to God - are quite cheap (normal postal cost)).... This digression aside (which is however relevant in terms of the website not being the primary topic - Israel Postal Company#Letters to God seems to be much more significant (is a possible redirect, maybe)), the website is presently defunct. I don't see much in continuing sourcing for this. Seems they got some PRish coverage by YNET in 2006 and not much else.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like advertisement, inappropriately sourced. JimRenge (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, now defunct commercial venture that got a small, brief flurry of press attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more to add to what has already been stated above. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Graham87 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriacos A. Athanasiou[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for academics, or is a borderline case at best. The article has been created and primarily edited by Bioengineering (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account whose only edits over the last nine-and-a-half years have been to promote Athanasiou and his work. Graham87 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Graham87 02:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May require some cleanup for neutrality, but GS shows an h index of 81, far more than what would usually be required for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Assuming we can verify it, the fact that a subject is an AAAS Fellow is generally held to meet WP:PROF#C3. And I think his appointment as Distinguished Professor at UC Irvine is a pretty straightforward pass of WP:PROF#C5. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @EricEnfermero: Thanks for your comment; I've never encountered a case quite like this. The article just seemed to be stretching so hard to prop his credentials up ... like the first item refers to an award from the Nemitsas Foundation, which doesn't have an article here, as the Cypriot equivalent of the Nobel Prize. Maybe the article needs some TNT (at least content-wise)? But as for him being an AAAS Fellow, here's a source straight from the horse's mouth. Graham87 04:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. This is one of those articles that are quite wretchedly written (e.g. as WP:PROMO) but, still, deserve to stay up on account of WP:N. Requires some serious clean up, though. Also, the article's creator should be warned about a potential WP:COI, or perhaps WP:AUTOBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF as argued above, and though it needs a thorough de-promotionalization, this can probably be done just by cutting the existing text, rather than having to dynamite the whole thing and start from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the unanimous consensus above seems to be to keep the article, and the edits last night to remove the self-promotion are a good start, I've withdrawn this nomination. Graham87 04:25, 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geelaqa[edit]

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

No coords, nothing in geonames: I can't find anything on this supposed Somali town. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this gets the award for most phantom Somali place name yet. SportingFlyer talk 04:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Phantom Town Award
		This award is hereby presented to to the phantom town of Geelaqa for being the most unverifiable geo-stub in recent AfD history. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] This is a Delete !vote

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google Maps search returns: Maps can't find Geelaqa. This article is an obvious hoax. Eye snore 00:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it's hoax in the sense that the editor in question made it up. Given its age it's more liely it was eliminated from geonames or whatever other service was used as a source. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely nothing verifiable. Brycehughes (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm checking for other 2009 Somalia creations by Starzynka. Obviously bot-generated from a list of place names which appears to have been inaccurate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found something: a "Geelaq" appears in [29] in Belet Xaawo district. [30] has a Google map for that location. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Check [31] to find these maps for other parts of Somalia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth that map apparently labels Kenya as Ethiopia. Brycehughes (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've had a lot of trouble getting those UN maps to line up with the present, and I found a picture supposedly from Geelaq which shows a kid jumping into the ocean. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another NOTTHERE town. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:52, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Mills (animator)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. No in-depth covering of the subject, just a passing mention in the only reference. Close to A7. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Terry Brain (animator) and rename to CMTB Animations, then send the nominator down The Trap Door. Somebody responsible for creating a seminal kid's TV show also enjoyed by grown-ups is not an A7. Oh, and they also created a rare instance of Terry Wogan narrating an actual children's TV programme, as opposed to merely a parody of one (eg: "Mrs Lewellyn is from South Wales. See Martinevans123. John later tells Janet that Mrs Lewellyn had a very nice box that he could put his stuff into, and afterwards, she gave him a big treat. Do you know what impact an ironing board makes when it lands on your head? John does. Poor John.") Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some way, but probably what Ritchie333 says. In my view there is a claim to significance as the BBC published an extensive obituary. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the one show has left a lasting legacy. Involved with another show and pilots that haven't made much of a mark but part of production companies, as part of the duo that had the hit show, and on his own there is some coverage. I don't see a practical merge. What about his Spike Island production company? Best lwft a stubby stand alone. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's the type of presentation by the author that one may this shouldn't be an article. So it just needs to be polished up tweak it here and there. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could be persuaded to upgrade my !vote to "keep" if somebody expanded the article past the 176-character überstub that's there now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 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. Closed as delete based on strength of arguments. Notability not established per NMEDIA, as this is a public access cable station, not a broadcast station. No other criteria for notability has been set forth. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CAV-TV[edit]

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

College tv station for a satellite campus of the University of Virginia. Even if the station was broadcast from the main campus, it would still have questionable notability, but a station from a school with less students than the average community college clearly fails WP:GNG. Only source is the school's website and youtube. Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since this is not a regular television station broadcast over the public airwaves, it isn't presumed automatically to be notable, but needs to demonstrate notability from significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This article has no independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to University of Virginia's College at Wise. Stations broadcasting original content are presumed notable according to oir guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Student TV stations are generally not kept in the absence of good sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the SNG for Broadcast stations, to wit: Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes. See: media. Carrite (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's for over-the-air television, for cable, " Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable. A "governmental access" feed that runs a text generator of community events plus city council meetings for a population of 50,000 is not generally presumed notable, but can be conferred notability by meeting the standards set forth in WP:CORP." (emphasis mine)--Rusf10 (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was surprised that Cavalier TV - which I took at first glance as a station at UVA, one of America's great universities - should be at AfD. Then I realized that this is the station not of UVA but of the University of Virginia's College at Wise, yes, Virginia, there is a university of Wise. I can't source it - at all. Not even under the nickname "Cavalier TV" (UVA's teams are "Cavaliers",) although there is/was a commercial TV channel called "Cavalier TV" in Richmond that shows up in news searches. This one, however, appears to be an example of a non-notable college TV station.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 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.