The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keiko Nakazawa[edit]

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

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Do not get me started on how disgraceful it is that we have so many times as many articles on Japanese pornographic film actresses than articles on Japanese women judges. The respective counts are 103 articles and 3 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayura Hoshitsuki[edit]

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

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete total failure of our if anything too broad notability guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Toshok[edit]

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

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

Tag for notability since 2012. Searching still doesn't turn up much. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Even the link in the infobox is dead. Previously deleted in a unanimous AFD in 2006 and recreated in 2007. MB 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Subject clearly fails WP:BASIC with not enough RS. JTtheOG (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, 1 ref that is trivial. Szzuk (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anybody who wishes to write a new, well-researched, properly sourced, and non-copyvio article at this title is free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of electricity supply in bangladesh[edit]

History of electricity supply in bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is so much wrong with this article that the best way of dealing with it is to delete it. It has obviously been copied from another wiki, and although it is CCbySA I don't know how it would properly be attributed. The article itself is not properly reflected by its title, as it is neither a History, not is it solely about Electricity. There are already many articles here about the energy sector in Bandladesh which probably already cover these topics, see Category:Energy in Bangladesh. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I have attributed the article, that is not an issue to delete, but uselessness may be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Assuming it is not copy-vio, the correct title would be Electricity Supply in Bangladesh: it is not primarily a historical article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, it isn't even just about electricity, and if it were there is already Electricity sector in Bangladesh. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - per WP:TNT. This is a copy of [1] (with formatting issues intact). Sources haven't been migrated. This isn't quite a fork of Electricity sector in Bangladesh (which exists) - but rather the wider Energy sector in Bangladesh (it includes household energy which is non-electrical - e.g. fuelwood stoves). It might be possible to merge, userfy, or improve (with a more proper title) - but someone needs to be willing to dot he legwork.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Also the content is available at energypedia. Rzvas (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Energy in Bangladesh has also covered many of these aspects. Rzvas (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no prejudice against recreation in an appropriate form, just not a copy and paste. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — what useful material there is would be better recreated than salvaged. Ralbegen (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rassias[edit]

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

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

notability Mathchecker (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is only a post-doctoral researcher. Does not have a tenure-track at the University of Zurich where he is listed as working, let alone full professorship, position. So well below threshold of notability on this front.

Major contributions to research? Majority of his papers appear in fact to be in low-prestige journals, (some in journals associated with citation rings). I do not see any major research accomplishments on par with mathematicians for which wikipedia pages have been written. Needless to say, he has received no reputable international prizes for his research, etc.

That leaves his "editorial" activities: As was pointed out before, however, "co-editing" a book (whose content is a series of papers by other people) together with a famous senior mathematician is more or less a secretarial type job and is not in itself a criterion of notability.

The web-history of the article is consistent with that of a vanity wikipedia page.

I strongly suspect that it is the subject of the article himself who has constructed the page.

I think this is clear case for deletion. Mathchecker (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now. Please can you say why you think he created this page himself? I have seen a lot of blatant and hamfisted vanity on Wikipedia and this does not look like a particularly strong candidate. If there is anything fishy going on here then it is not very blatant. The article was drafted by an IP editor. It had a few false starts but it eventually got promoted to the article space by the usual AfC process. I would agree that the image of the subject is likely to be provided or uploaded by himself, or maybe a friend, but as that user account has not edited the article that is not a huge issue in itself. The user who uploaded the image could plausibly be the IP editor who made the article, given that both were created at pretty much the same time. That would not be ideal but it does not doom the article given that it was created as a draft and got through an AfC review. That IP has not edited it since. If they are an involved editor then editing the draft and then stepping back once it becomes an article seems reasonable behaviour although an explicit declaration of involvement would have helped.
  I'm not going to say that he definitely does or does not meet WP:PROF, which is what the really boils down to, as it is not clear to me how significant his publications are. They are clearly not nothing but I can't say whether they are enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete as the subject has requested it and there is no good reason not to do as they request. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I conjecture that the subject made the article on the basis of (a) the choice and amount of detail which was included, (b) the fact that the IP address is in Switzerland, where the subject is based, and (c) the fact that no other articles are associated with this IP address. Subsequent edits to prevent the article from deletion were made from anonymous IP addresses in Greece. The web history is just very different from that of other wikipedia articles concerning mathematicians, and I do find that suspicious. But whether he made the article himself or not is of course secondary. The subject of this article does not come close to meeting any of the criteria of WP:PROF. Of course he has some scientific publications, and he has collaborated with other mathematicians, some distinguished, some not, as any young postdoc at his career stage would. Not only are these publications not in any way exceptional (and they would have to be truly exceptional for him to qualify under WP:PROF given his very low rank in career stage) but actually they appear quite weak: In particular, it would be surprising for a notable mathematician to even consider publishing in journals such as "Advances in Operator Theory", published by the "Tusi Mathematical Research Group (TMRG)" or "Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics", published by University of Belgrade - School of Electrical Engineering, which not only have no reputation but seem like journals involved in citation rings. To anyone in the mathematics community, the presence of such journals on a CV cries out "scam". Anyway, the subject is so far from meeting WP:PROF that I don't think one has to dig too deeply into his publication record but the story gets worse and worse the more I look... Mathchecker (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too soon to have established independent notability for his mathematical contributions. The article tries to make a case for inherited notability by working with famous people but we don't use that sort of reasoning here. And publishing stuff is also not a claim of notability; what WP:PROF#C1 asks for is that the stuff you publish have an established impact. Also, note that his Google Scholar profile is misleading — what it shows as his top-cited paper is actually "The Problem of S. M. Ulam for Approximately Multiplicative Mappings", a publication from 2000 (long before he was active as a professional mathematician) by someone else with a similar name, Themistocles M. Rassias. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS see also the recent edit history of prime gap, Helmut Maier, Rassias' conjecture (prodded), Gradimir Milovanović, and John Forbes Nash Jr. for additional promotional-looking editing related to the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't rise to the standard of WP:PROF. Having published stuff, even if it was in collaboration with famous people, isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I received an email from Rassias, where he writes:

"Notwithstanding the fact that I feel honored that some people may have thought that a Wikipedia profile could exist for me, I believe it is too early in my career for such a thing. As I am not knowledgeable on how Wikipedia really works in order to proceed myself with it, I would like to ask for your help in order for this page to actually be deleted. If you could do this, I would appreciate it very much if you could please delete this Wikipedia page."

So I think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Currently does not meet NPROF. If the subject has also personally requested deletion of the article, this is an even clearer delete. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the International Brigades[edit]

Antisemitism in the International Brigades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page was proposed for deletion a year ago. At the time, the discussion was closed, with a decision to merge this into International Brigades. However, this was not the preferred option of any of the participants in the discussion, and has not been carried out. None of the issues raised at the time has been addressed, the article is still largely original research and synthesis, and reads much more like a undergraduate thesis than an encyclopaedia article. I don't think that this article is salvageable, and repeat my belief that it should be deleted. RolandR (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If, after 13 months, nobody has cared enough to implement the merger, delete it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ample time has been given to merge the article that apparently only one editor actually wanted merged. The article itself literally admits its lack of secondary coverage in the opening sentence: Scholarly research on the antisemitism in International Brigades has been limited; in other words, there is not enough here to establish notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed with Shabazz. A redirect into a broader anti-semitism article is okay. Calm Omaha (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 13 months and a prior AfD is plenty of chances. The topic was marginal to begin with, so not a loss. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with Shabazz and coffman. Kierzek (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ample time to be merged, article needs to be deleted.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Film Centre[edit]

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

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

Terribly promotional article by an obvious COI editor, which has been here in this condition (without references to establish notability) for far too long. This is basically the text of an organizational website. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a deletion criterion — as discouraged as it is, a COI article's keepability or deletability comes down not to the COI itself, but to whether or not the COI issues are repairable with a scrub job for neutrality and sourceability. This is a very notable organization, however — even if it presents its claim to notability in an advertorialized way that could stand to be rephrased more neutrally than it is, it fundamentally is every bit as central to the Canadian film and television industries as it claims, and the reliable source referencing to repair it with does exist out there in the real world. So it's definitely a candidate for badly needed cleanup, but its problems are not grounds for deletion per se. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT / WP:PROMO. Unsourced promotional 'cruft, starting with "a charitable organization whose mission is to invest in and inspire the next generation of world-class Canadian content creators and entrepreneurs in the screen-based entertainment industry"! There's nothing preventing anyone from creating an article based on RS (if indeed the subject is notable), but Wikipedia is not a place to house an org's funding appeals. In the present form, the article is G11 eligible. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already in the process of cleaning up the promotionalism and adding proper sources, so there's no need for a WP:TNT here. It's not a question of if the subject is notable. It is notable, and the article just wasn't doing a very good job of showing and sourcing that properly — but cleanup is already underway. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent article improvements by Bearcat. The section Canadian_Film_Centre#Training_and_advancement is still unsourced and promotional in nature, however. I suggest it be removed unless it can be sourced properly. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable, and with Bearcat's improvements, also now properly sourced. Hoverfish Talk 15:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passes WP:GNG and is no longer promotional. Ralbegen (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable - improved references by Bearcat.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Al-Emary[edit]

Osama Al-Emary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a writer and consultant, written much more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article. This is referenced to just one footnote, and while I don't completely trust Google Translate's translation from Arabic, that publication's "about us" page appears to describe itself as a user-generated open content platform where anybody can submit "news" about anything they want to create self-published sourcing for ("We are looking for important information and we will publish it and publish it. Open community dialogues on issues of the homeland. Open to all opinions to express the spectrum of society.") And even if we grant it the benefit of the doubt and accept it as a reliable source, it still takes more than just one acceptable reliable source to pass WP:GNG -- but other than that one footnote, all this does otherwise is linkfarm an WP:ELNO-violating collection of dead links and pieces of his own writing about other things, which are not notability-assisting sources either. He needs to be the subject of content written and published by other people, not the bylined author of content about other things, to be properly sourced as a notable writer. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. CV. Szzuk (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. possibly self promotional, not enough good RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Murray (Talent manager)[edit]

Gerald Murray (Talent manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Murray managed some notable names, but notability is not inherited and the available sources do not indicate sufficient notability on his own. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, refs are related to the artists he managed and not the subject of the article WP:NOTINHERITED. Szzuk (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hedda Martina Šola[edit]

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

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

WP:AUTOBIO of a marketing consultant, whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN: a person is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because her own writing technically verifies that she exists, and even if she can be properly sourced as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article she still isn't entitled to create it herself. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be used for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Allen[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer and curator, whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to primary sources. As always, you do not get a writer over WP:AUTHOR by referencing it to sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things -- you make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article by referencing it to sources in which she's the subject of content written by other people, but that's not what any of the footnotes here are. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are 11 sources listed. Of these, only source #10 is RS:
  • 1. "Jan Allen Named Acting Director of Agnes Etherington Art Centre – Canadian Art". Canadian Art." This is a four-sentence notice of a hiring. Not in-depth.
    2. "Inside Kingston Penitentiary (1835–2013): Geoffrey James". This is an artist's monograph with an afterward by Jan Allen. Printed by her employer Queens U. Not independent.
    3. "Annie Pootoogook : Kinngait compositions." A catalogue on an (excellent) artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source.
    4. "Sorting daemons : art, surveillance regimes and social control. A catalogue on an artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source.
    5. "Condé and Beveridge : class works...Agnes Etherington Art Centre." A catalogue on an (excellent) artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source-- Published by employer.
    6. Nowell, Iris (2001). Joyce Wieland: A Life in Art." This is a book about Joyce Wieland, presumably with a Jan Allen essay. Not in-depth, independent ot about the subject.
    7. "C Magazine / Issue 58" An essay by Jan Allen.
    8. "C Magazine / Issue 52" An essay by Jan Allen.
    9. Dyck, Sandra ([1999]). Jan Allen's Speculative Science." This is the only independent in-depth source about the subject, as far as I can tell.
    10. "Programming: 1990-1999 | Modern Fuel Artist-Run Centre" This is a list of programming that confirms something happened, rather than being in-depth coverage about the article subject.198.58.159.245 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reassess There are now 44 sources listed, includimg the Toronto Globe and Mail and books about museums, public art, and visual culture. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to The Globe and Mail is not about her, but just glancingly namechecks her existence a single time in an article about something else. (And incidentally, there is no such thing as the "Toronto Globe and Mail" — it's just "The Globe and Mail", period.). Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see you have just added a large set of minor mentions, although I stopped counting after I read ten of them. Bios, etc. Where is the in-depth coverage? For example, this set of minutes from the Kingston town council meeting proves just that she went to the town council to present something. Anyone who gets up to speak gets their name in the minutes. Two of the other references beside that one (there were six attached to one statement) are merely her name in a list of four or five names. Example. Those are not reliable sources that contribute to notability, they are just name checks. That is the case for most of the new references. I have not seen one new example of in-depth coverage in the newer 44-reference version. I want to, but cannot see anything of substance in the new refs. The Globe and Mail source mentions here in one sentence along with two other people. It's a name check. If you could point out which ones are substantial in-depth coverage, that would help. Pinging Theredproject, DGG and Mduvekot as they often participate in artist Afds.104.163.158.37 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have struggled with this nomination. The article itself is factual, NPOV etc, and all statements are supported by independent, reliable sources. What is missing is two in-depth profiles in a major publication that would make it obvious that the subject meets the GNG. I agree that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. Should the article be deleted then? I'm neither comfortable with the rigid application of rules (Wikipedia has no firm rules, remember?) nor with the inconsistent application of IAR, where we make exceptions just because, well, we can. I actually like having the article, because it is about someone who is a figure in a the art world where I participate as well, and it helps me put her contributions in context. It is a good thing to have. It adds to "the sum of all human knowledge". It doesn't violate anything in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, including Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory. I think Allen meets an aspect of WP:CREATIVE: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Another criterion that can apply is that she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, if we can agree that curating is a form of creative work, which I think it is. In aggregate, the sheer number of (yes) mentions show that Allen has been both a subject and participant in the discourse about Canadian art for a very long time. I think that should be enough. Updated 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC) in response to DGG's points below. Ceterum censeo, WP:CREATIVE must be rewritten. Vexations (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt's true that this is not a badly written page. It's also true that this person plays a role in the Canadian art world that is valuable on may levels. However the point of the encyclopedia not to create a definitive directory of all valuable persons, it is to create a directory of notable persons. The artists she is writing about have a lot of notability. I do not think she does as a curator; anyone filling her position at the gallery would have more than half the references cited here, by virtue of the position.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. the keep argument is based on the proposal that we should keep bios on admittedly non-notable people because an editor here thinks they ought to be regarded as a major figure. Admittedly, curators are difficult to document unless they had published works that would qualify as NAUTHOR or NPROF,, but important curators do just that. The minor publications shown here do not. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:CREATIVE needs to be rewritten because it has no ability to handle situations like this one; in fact they might not even fit under CREATIVE and instead should be a category of academic...? Nor can it fairly handle artists who do not produce the kind of work that is collected by museums. And per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Chan we don't have consensus on what "substantial" and "significant" mean. I understand DGG's argument, but would we say the same of a president of a college or university? For the time being, given current WP:CREATIVE I will say Weak Keep in because of the awards, the significant coverage, and in particular because of the Candadian Art news item about her appointment; those pieces are typically good indicators of the stature of the person and/or the position. Also, sorry about the delay in responding: your ping got lost in a flood of alerts from Wikidata... Theredproject (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the entirety of the Canadian Art article, which is 92 words and three numerical figures: "A longtime curator at one of Canada’s leading university galleries has been named its acting director. Jan Allen, who has curated recent exhibitions on Carole Condé and Karl Beveridge, Annie Pootoogook, and Howie Tsui, has been named acting director of the Agnes Etherington Art Centre at Queen’s University in Kingston. A curator at the centre since 1992, Allen has developed more than 100 exhibitions. Since 2007, she has been chief curator/curator of contemporary art at the gallery. The director position was vacated in mid-October by Janet M. Brooke, who had been at the AEAC for 10 years."104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mellencamp Smith[edit]

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

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as fundraising director of a political party. This is a role that could get her an article if she were sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that confers an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL just because she exists -- but while she gets namechecked a fair bit in a Google News search (almost entirely in relation to her being let go last fall), she isn't the subject of any significant coverage that I can find. So the coverage that does exist just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not somebody who's cleared GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per BLP1E, though, I'm not entirely sure BLP1E applies as this would presuppose there was even one event and I'm not certain even that standard is met. This seems to be a complete failure of the GNG and (maybe) WP:POLOUTCOMES. Many people have jobs and many people are laid-off from their jobs. Being employed or being unemployed are not indicators of notability, otherwise every living person would be eligible for a WP article. Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a low level functionary for the Democratic National Committee is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hastily thrown together text about a subject lacking notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are indeed three or four reliable sources out there that establish that a) she was the DNC head fundraiser and b) she got fired. If this were a CV, it would be one line. Fails GNG.104.163.158.37 (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Absolutely zero indication of meeting WP:GNG. All that seems to be out there is passing mentions that the subject of this article had a job and then lost it. No matter how high-profile the employer may be, that does not impart notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Beach House 3. There's some question about the proper redirect target. If somebody wants to be WP:BOLD and change this to point to Ty Dolla Sign discography, I have no problem with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Your Phone[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. An album track with no notability. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Valid search term, can be repointed to Ty Dolla Sign discography, as it was in the first place. Ss112 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This song is a single from the album. There is notability behind it backing it up. Yes, it does need more information behind and citation to back up it up. I feel as though it's a keeper. Both artist collaborated on the song and it features another artist. I think that's enough for it to stand alone as an article. The song is in fact released in you search for it on the net. You can purchase the song on iTunes and other places. This is not just a song from the album but a single itself.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment single release (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with whether songs warrant articles, and artists featured on it are also entirely moot. What they need per WP:Notability (music)#Songs (WP:NSONGS) is multiple legitimate secondary sources outside of album reviews that cover this in a fair amount of detail (preferably more than a paragraph) and aren't just based off of artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary (which would basically be self-promotion). There should also be enough information available on the song itself (not just parent album filler) to create more than just a stub. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Beach House 3 per nom. The creator's reasoning for keeping the article is obviously invalid, they clearly do not understand NSONGS. Hayman30 (talk)
• Redirect to Beach House 3 - notability cannot be inherited. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lists of television channels. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of television channels (alphabetically)[edit]

Lists of television channels (alphabetically) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is too broad of a category as per WP:SALAT. Despite its length, it is actually not complete. And it is also difficult to maintain, as it is out of date. We already have more appropriate lists by country, see [2] Rusf10 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I’m sorry to disagree here, but you say in the nomination that the list is; “…. too broad of a category as per WP:SALAT”. However, in fact, it fits perfectly within the guidelines recommended by this policy. As stated in the opening remarks of the policy; “…To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists.” This topic is a specific list: a Lists of television channels (alphabetically) and does limit the topic specifically. Second, with regards to; “…difficulty to maintain”, is not every article in Wikipedia difficult to maintain on a day-to-day-, hour-by-hour basis with breaking news and vandalism happening second by second? And finally, as you stated; “… it is out of date” Every article here at Wikipedia is out of date, that is why we have an unlimited amount of volunteer editors updating and improving articles on a second-by-second basis. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At 95,947 bytes it is too large as per WP:TOOBIG (and its not even complete). As that size spinoffs are recommended. However, I I pointed out above those spinoffs already exist, making this article not necessary. Actually the spinoff content is fully listed here Lists_of_television_channels. It is a very broad category for a list. We don't have other similar list such as List of retail stores (alphabetically) or List of radio stations (alphabetically).--Rusf10 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Rusf10, I’m sorry but I do not believe you read the policy all the way through. If you go to WP:SPLITLIST, under the policy heading WP:TOOBIG you referred to, you will see the guideline states specifically; “…Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope.”...Sorry again, but we can not pick and choose specific areas of a policy, that do not apply to the specific situation you are referring to and try to apply to that situation.... goes to the old adage; "...a square peg does not fit into a round hole". Nice try though. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shoessss:, I am sorry, but I actually did read the policy and I am not picking and choosing specific areas of it. There is a "natural" way to split this list and it's already been done, see Lists_of_television_channels. It makes logical sense to split the television channels by country, which is what has been done, making this list both redundant and a complete mess.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Kind of meaningless. TV market is very much segmented by country and regions. I wouldn't get CNBC Asia in the USA, but largely they carry very similar programming (perhaps some of the CNBC Asia shows wouldn't be on CNBC USA because they're shown on other NBC channels instead) but with a different schedule. Also, the threshold for inclusion is unclear. In the US we have a lot of local independent stations K??? or W??? stations but are not on this list. Again except for some locally produced shows you will find the same programming on another channel in another part of the world. Acnetj (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT. Unwieldy list that needs to be condensed into separate regional lists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and further annotate with the country of origin. --RAN (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy-based reason to keep? Also, it seems like you support catergorizing them by country, kind of like this or this?

• Delete I don't see any utility of this topic beyond what's available in articles linked in Lists of television channels. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You can't delete something because of its length or how hard you think it is to maintain. I don't see the point of this though, since we have lists of television channels by language and by nation already, but in the past 90 days it has received 10,275 pageviews. So someone must be using it. I agree with Richard Arthur Norton, if it listed the nation the channels were in, it'd be more useful. Add in what company owns them, make it a sortable list, and that'd be even more useful. See how many channels are owned by who and how many nations they are in. Dream Focus 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page views is not a valid reason to keep (see WP:BIGNUMBER) nor "it is useful" (see WP:USEFUL). I am also not just arguing that the list is too long. It is too long and there are already suitable replacements in existence. Since we already have lists of channels by county, there is no reason to create a massive sortable table. Massive sortable lists are not appropriate, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a spreadsheet. For example, when you go to Lists of actors, there is not a massive sortable table--Rusf10 (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It serves a purpose, people use it, and it has potential to be even more useful. The fact that List of American film actresses and the like only list names and birthdays doesn't mean other lists can't be sortable. There are a lot of sortable lists on Wikipedia, just takes some effort for someone to make them. Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#General_formats_of_list_articles mentions List of social networking websites as a sortable list. Dream Focus 00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of American film actresses is not a list of every American film actress ever or even all those with a wikipedia article (same with the your other example), it is limited to only the most notable, so you're comparing apples to oranges.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a Wikipedia article they can be listed. The fact no one updated it to have everyone, is not relevant. Dream Focus 04:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lists of television channels, just to maintain the edit history. We already have lists by country and language. Do not reinvent the wheel. Add the entries to those, and when needed (particularly for countries), create new, more manageable lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the grammar police have issued a citation. There is only one list. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lists of television channels It's just a long list of links. The category system works a lot better for something like this. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SALAT. Tens of thousands of stations, each of which could be considered their own channel. Many choose to air the same content as other stations, but there are a bunch of notable indie stations that would have to be counted. And if a station is affiliated with a major network like NBC but has local programming, are they to be listed twice? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockade (novel)[edit]

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

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

Non notable book, no usable sources upon search, just stores and mirrors. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 22:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs in the article, nothing i can find on google, it isn't on sale on amazon but there are a few copies on ebay, doesn't look like it got republished after first copy in 1999. Szzuk (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accept offline refs based on info below. Szzuk (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Austlit shows two good sources [3]. Other reviews available include:

Ferguson, Jean (5 September 1998), "Cheryl Finds GOD In A Twisted Forest Saga", Illawarra Mercury

Caterson, Simon (12 September 1998), "In bed with the greens", Herald Sun

Notable book by notable author. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm at a loss how to properly evaluate duffbeerforme's sources. For sure, there's no requirement that sources be on-line, but we need something more than this. For example, the austlit page you cite says:

Works about this Work
1 Human's Changing Relationship to the Non-Human World Deborah Jordan , 2014 criticism 
— Appears in: Climate Change Narratives in Australian Fiction 2014; (p. 41-55)
2 A Moral Fable in East Gippsland Stephen Prickett , 1998 review 
— Appears in: The Canberra Times , 5 September 1998; (p. 22) 
— Review of Blockade Derek Hansen 1998 novel))

but that doesn't really give us anything to go on. From what I can see, I can't tell if either of these are full-fledged reviews of the novel, or just some mention. Perhaps you could help us out by summarizing these sources or giving some sort of additional details. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of the first one here. Not that much about Blockade.

Canberra Times, mainstream newspaper, 875 words, review of the book.

Illawarra Mercury, mainstream newspaper, 325 words, review of the book, repuplished 19 June 1999

Herald Sun, mainstream newspaper, 349 words review of the book.

How's that?

Additional, Heaney, Claire (16 January 1999), "The hard sell - Lukewarm reception", Herald Sun finishes with 175 words about the book. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:AGF the reviews seem indepth and independent based on the above information so WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the above seems to indicate sufficient depth of coverage. Adding some cited quotes from the reviews to the article would be a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Wow, I thought this discussion was over, but nope- it was just getting started.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 17:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakish keep There does seem to be sufficient IRS to get this over the GNG line, and improve the article somewhat. Aoziwe (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. nowhere close to WP:Notability (academics), also multiple removal of SD tags Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Ruprecht[edit]

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

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

Seems like a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Also looks like the page was created by Michal himself. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This was not created by Michal — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichalRuprecht (talk • contribs) 20:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is the creator named User:MichalRuprecht claiming to not be the creator or to not be Michal? Is he impersonating the subject or lying here? I;m confused. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and failure to meet WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Maybe in a few years. Cbl62 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Christian Network[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced article about an online social networking community, which makes some advertorialized claims of potential notability but entirely fails to reliably source them. One of the references here verifies the tangential fact that Microsoft released an SQL update in 1996, but completely fails to verify this article's claim that the "Global Christian Network" had anything to do with it -- and the only other sources here are its entry in its home state's business registration directory and an SEC financial report, which are primary sources that do not support a company's notability. In addition, this has been getting incorrectly conflated with Global Christian Network (broadcaster), an unrelated television broadcaster whose notability isn't being properly demonstrated either: that topic has been revert-warred in the past between a standalone article about it and an incorrect redirect to here, and even the direct inbound links to here were, literally right across the board except for its entry on the GCN disambiguation page, also expecting that rather than this.
A business does not get an automatic free pass over WP:CORP just because it existed, but there's no sourcing here that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Notability is not temporary. Assuming the content is true, this could have been notable in 1996-2001. Notability does not disappear by the subject being taken over. It would be helpful of the article said what company took it over. It looks as if it was one of many things that were over-hyped in the dot.com era and then disappeared. Certainly, this needs references, but that is a reason for tagging for improvement, not for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, but it has to be properly established in the first place before it exists at all. Lacking references is not necessarily a reason for improvement tagging over deletion — an article could certainly be kept if somebody could show the evidence that the sources required to properly establish its notability actually exist, but simply theorizing that maybe the proper references might exist, without actually undertaking any attempt to actually find out one way or the other whether they really do or not, is not enough to get a poorly referenced article kept. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a few passing mentions but not significant for establishing notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:WEB and significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayu Nakada[edit]

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

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

It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Proposer) --Gonta-Kun (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:AfD fixed. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although this player fails WP:NFOOTY, but may pass WP:GNG. Pinging Hmlarson, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. She's actually a famous person in Japan and easily passes WP:GNG. Google News search in Japanese: [4]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found within the article already. The fact that this is based on her looks / appearance rather than her footballing achievements is not relevant. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is surprisingly quite a bit on her on the web and she does seem to pass GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject fails WP:NFOOTY but that is irrelevant as she passes WP:GNG anyway, even though most of the coverage is for a pretty trivial reason. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete she fails NFOOTY, so the GNG is less relevant for sourcing about here career: we can assume it is routine. In terms of the GNG for things that are trivial: if it is trivial coverage simply about her looks, I wouldn't count that as meeting the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you even look at the sources? Articles like this are not "trivial coverage", that's practically a finished encyclopedic article about her. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes no sense Tony. Just because someone dosent pass NFOOTY doesnt mean they can't pass GNG. Passing NFOOTY presumes passing GNG, but it is not true to say that failing NFOOTY presumes failing GNG. Further comments from other editors about coverage being trivial concerns the fact that coverage focuses on her looks rather than her footballing skill not being trivial in terms of depth. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Although it's true she fails WP:NFOOTY for now, she clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple sourced providing in-depth coverage of her career (starting with this article that Moscow Connection already pointed out). NFOOTY is just used to suggest that players who pass the guideline might be notable, but someone passing GNG confirms notability. JTtheOG (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I tend to agree that she fails WP:NFOOTY but passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While her rise to fame comes from her soccer career, but as shown by others in this discussion, she has had significant coverage in Japan in regards to her, enough to pass GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. If a rationale is required, then passing WP:NOLYMPICS in spades applies; the possibility of WP:SKCRIT#2 or #3 may also be also relevant, but is for discussion elsewhere. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McKinley[edit]

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

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

not notable Makro (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First, he competed at the Olympics, passing WP:NOLY. Second, he's won lots of races, per his bios on Cycling Archives and ProCyclingStats. And third, there's press coverage in the NY Times and LA Times, for starters. See also WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then why not include it I the article. All it consists of is on sentence and one reference. More is needed to prove notability. Makro (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Speedy keep and comment Clearly passes WP:NOLY so this AFD should be a quick close. @Makro: could help things out by withdrawing his misguided nomination and even worse defense of it which is misleading. The article is two sentences not one and how that can be missed I don't know except possibly this editor is again being disruptive[5]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John (1803 ship)[edit]

John (1803 ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable ship; It existed and sank, that's all there is to it. Even if there were historical records that supported its existence other than this one book, it probably still wouldn't pass gng. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, found a mention here (4th para.) but more needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Completely NN. There were 1000s of ships. We cannot have an article on every one, just because it happens to be listed in some book, any more than we could allow one on all the 1000s of grantees of the German WWII Knight's Cross. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination - not alot more to be said. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a 30 ton sealing sloop with a crew of 5. I did find this - [6], but it seems most of what is out there is a short blurb on the report. What does possibly give me pause is this being early in Australia's European colonization history - but I don't see the sources here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - loss covered in List of shipwrecks in 1806. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable Lyndaship (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete to List of shipwrecks in 1806. Content already in this article to be expanded from merge of currently separate content. Not sufficiently notable in its own right for a separate article. Note delete rather than redirect due to ambiguation of John (ship). There are many such ships over the years. (If not delete then it would need some non trivial work to create the disambiguation page for the many many such named marine vessels.) Aoziwe (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lesbian. Redirect and selectively merge, as described by XOR'easter. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gold star lesbian[edit]

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

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

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold star gay, this is little more than a WP:DICDEF of a term, sourced primarily to examples of it being used as a phrase, rather than reliable source analysis about it as a thing to establish that it would merit a standalone article (the only two sources here that actually approach that latter standard are both blogs.) As I said in my vote in the other discussion, it is a thing some of my fellow queers say about themselves -- but it's not a noteworthy or WP:DEFINING characteristic of what they are, because nobody's really going around handing out real gold stars to anyone on this basis. This doesn't need its own standalone article -- what little there is to really say or reliably source about this could be entirely covered off by one or two sentences about it in lesbian itself, without needing its own standalone spinoff article. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Words-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and selectively merge to Lesbian, probably to § Sexuality and lesbian identity. One or two sentences (three at the outside) ought to do it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per XOReaster. My gut says that there's probably enough scholarly writing about the definition of lesbian and intra-community relations that an article could live at this address, but also that that content doesn't have to live there, and that the sources currently in the article don't support it. It can always be popped out again later. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shine School Media Awards[edit]

Shine School Media Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. At the moment, the article is sourced only to the website of the organization. The bit about sponsors is not sourced at all. I did a Google search and found nothing to demonstrate notability, but perhaps others can find something I missed. Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN awards, 3 refs in the article, 2 primary, 1 unreliable. Szzuk (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrooz Waseem[edit]

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

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

I could have PROD this but since I found some trivial coverage in the RS such as this, I opted to AfD'ed this..

So to me the subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources.

For what its worth, the page was apparently created by the subject herself. Saqib (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as stub. She is singer. Lot of coverage in video. There are two articles which are related to her. [7] and [8]. In addition to above article this. Needs cleanup which can be done once this deletion discussion is closed. --Spasage (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singers are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they are singers and exists — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:SINGERS.. You should provide reliable sources, not any source to establish the notability. Coverage in the Hindustan Times is merely passing mention. --Saqib (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole article on her. See this [9] --Spasage (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is some questionable dubious source having poor reputation for fact checking. --Saqib (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither htv nor hindustantimes are dubious. It may be stub but not a delete. --Spasage (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid HTV.com.pk is clearly some unreliable source which we should not be citing on BLPs. --Saqib (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that is not the only one cited. there are three. combine all three, you have good idea of the person. --Spasage (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite gossip-tabloids over BLPs.And, the HTimes cover the subject in the most trivial of all manners.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-As Saqib said, these paid-spammy-pieces/interviews at tabloids are not eligible as sources in BLPs.Fails WP:NSINGER.No significant non-trivial coverage.Let the rising star rise a bit more aka TOOSOON.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find a single reliable source discussing her in depth (and a BLP requires rather more than a single source). COI issue as per the talk page of this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 16:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for closing admin Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_proposal. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Charlot[edit]

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

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

Not seeing any notability beyond in inherited. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks any sources. Transcribing music for someone else does not make the transcriber notable. Nor does getting killed in a war that killed millions. Nor does having a work dedicated to you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, i googled for him and found some work as a composer but not enough to satisfy wp:v, no refs in the article, created by an spa called jacques charlot, no prejudice against recreation with the references. Szzuk (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Savior Lutheran Church (St. Petersburg, Florida)[edit]

Our Savior Lutheran Church (St. Petersburg, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable congregation with a non-notable school. The article was deleted and subsequently recreated with an attempt to show notability, but it still does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. EDIT: I forgot to add that the article is also entirely unsourced. Bnng (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bnng (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT Not notable church/congregation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete -- A typical NN local church, written to puff it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, local church and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeel Akhtar[edit]

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

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

Article is about a journalist who contributes journalism, References all say that this is what she does but there is nothing here to indicate that any others believe that she is notable. Could be an autobiography, but it still isn't notable. Searches reveal more of the same - the subject writes articles, nobody writes about her. Looks like yet another attempt to big-up crypto currencies. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Disagree with Velella's comments - the subject Tanzeel Akhtar has been quoted in the press for her analysis on cryptocurrencies and is considered a credible spokesperson on the subject matter discussion regulation and blockchain. See the links:[10][11][12][13]:CryptoScribbler (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article is supported by examples of subject's work and some quotes. Fails to provide in-depth, non-trivial support that establishes notability.reddogsix (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceel Gaal[edit]

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

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

This one is a bit of a puzzler. Geonames claims this as an "unverified" populated place on the northeast coast, but there's nothing there. It gives as a variant a name which appears to go with another place at the other end of Somaliland. Mapcarta claims a third location, nowhere near the first two. I'm going to call it "fails verification". Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails V. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Brady Brides (2017)[edit]

The Brady Brides (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created from content in The Brady Bunch. The spinoff series lasted a couple of months in 1981 and may be borderline notable as a standalone article. However, the 2017 in this article title is clearly misleading/incorrect; the creating editor should've placed the content into the existing title called The Brady Brides, currently a redirect back to The Brady Bunch. The creator also didn't follow WP:SPLIT/WP:CWW in creating this article, for which I left a notice on their talk page. As for the existence of The Brady Brides as a standalone, I'm not sure - it's probably preferable to keep it as a section in The Brady Bunch as it originally was, until a proper WP:SPLIT consensus is achieved. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the content in question has already been merged back to the original The Brady Bunch article, and this is a bad article title, and there is no point in keeping it (or moving it). If a WP:Split out of the content in question is desired, a proper discussion about splitting should be held at Talk:The Brady Bunch first... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a fork. Szzuk (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ongoing protests and civil unrest[edit]

List of ongoing protests and civil unrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:DEL14. Fundamentally contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia:Recentism. wumbolo ^^^ 15:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and encourage the creator to work with Portal:Current events, which is not in article space. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS Acnetj (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS applies.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not per WP:NOTNEWS though, I feel the scope of this area is far too broad to be of any real good use. This list also overlaps with other lists and categories that contain the same things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NOTNEWS.Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It would just be an endless revolving door with different premises instead of an actual encyclopedic topic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: but we have List of ongoing armed conflicts which is also described by your argument. wumbolo ^^^ 17:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale given by nominator and from a cursory look at sources, no WP:BEFORE was performed. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engare[edit]

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

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

renown UnitedPowers^Talk 15:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sufficient evidence of notability from significant coverage in a number of reliable sources including publications such as Ars Technica and Rolling Stone which do not predominantly cover video games, and recognition from notable industry professionals such as Robin Hunicke and Rami Ismail as well as verifiable evidence of both Iranian and international industry accolades. As there is a lack of specialised notability guidelines for video games, the general notability guideline should be used as a measure of notability - according to these the subject matter clearly passes. Felineastatine (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - No rationale for deletion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Code of the Samurai[edit]

Code of the Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears by all respects to be a non notable PS2 game. Lacks sources and I couldn't find any. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily The Patriot[edit]

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

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

This newspaper fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers.. Saqib (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep, there is coverage. This newspaper gets published. There is not much coverage, but it can stay as stub. --Spasage (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in posting that there is coverage, you should provide it here and establish the notability. Plethora of newspapers get published in Pakistan, daily but not all qualify for an entry on WP. Should meet the criteria Newspapers. --Saqib (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the criteria. Please see again. If an article is badly written, poor reference and other issues, it does not qualify to be delete. Fix the issue, before tagging it for deletion. --Spasage (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it does meets the criteria, why don't you help establish it? Merely saying something meets the criteria is not enough. --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--No shred of evidence of notability based on near-nil mention across books and other RS.Circulation figures etc. are highly unsatisfactory.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for closing admin Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_proposal. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircosmo Theory[edit]

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

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

Crackpot theory aiming to explain ESP supported by an "article" of 1.5 pages in a predatory journal. PROD removed by article creator. Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Deete - even if it were published in a legitimate journal it would need to receive notice by someone other than its original author to be notable. Agricolae (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Aircosmo Theory is a physics theory" — no, it isn't. And it doesn't rise to the standard of being noteworthy pseudoscience, either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

o Delete Originally PRODed to give article creator a chance to improve content. Clearly a non-notable 'idea' with no independent WP:RS to support it. Having now waded through the source again, I hope the authors didn't have to part with too much cash to get this utter tosh 'published'. WP:BOLLOCKS applies here. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Ponti[edit]

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

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

Delete Not notable for Sal Ponti. IMDB is not a reliable source. Reliable sources should be articles from newspapers, websites, etc. Even though he had a leading role in George Pal's film, "Atlantis, the Lost Continent," he only appeared in a relativity small number of films in minor roles. It also fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Evil Idiot (talk) 14:05, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with this actor so not going to vote (for now anyway), but I did find a few sources that address him in-depth. One article earlier in his career when he was using the stage name Anthony Hall, a lengthy obituary (albeit where he was from originally) and a shorter one that appeared elsewhere. 12 3 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one significant role is not enough to show notability. Also, there are absolutely no reliable sources listed with the article. It is high time that we default delete all articles unless they have at least one reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Trench (novel)[edit]

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

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

No coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, this page is ineligible for deletion because it could be merged and redirected to the author of this book, Steve Alten, whose notability the nominator does not question. Furthermore, a search for "Steve Alten"+meg in GNews brings up coverage in more than 320 sources, suggesting that this series of books is most probably notable. Apparently, there is going to be a film of these books with Jason Statham in it. I am under the impression he is fairly well known. A claim that there is "no coverage in reliable sources" certainly needs a great deal of further explanation when there are obviously hundreds of news sources. I also note that most of the cites to book reviews etc were recently deleted from Alten's article for no good reason that I can see. James500 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources found by Coolabahapple below prove that this book is indeed notable. James500 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Reviewed by Kirkus - "Not exactly taxing on the intellectual side, but a nail-biting summer read." ([14]), Publishers Weekly - "So how bad is this spawn of Meg, which Doubleday declined to publish (albeit perhaps in an earlier version)? About as bad--and as good--as its predecessor." ([15]), Booklist - "Alten's follow-up of Meg (1997) is a fast-paced thriller with many plot twists.", Library Journal - "Nearly a carbon-copy of Meg, this action-packed technothriller reads like a movie script and won't provoke many thoughts but will satisfy fans of Meg and Peter Benchley.", Voice of Youth Advocates - "The Trench is recommended for readers who want non-stop suspenseful action, and who can also suspend a sense of disbelief. " (reviews here). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, refs in this afd satisfy wp:v. Szzuk (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Hamblin[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking in depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in forthcoming elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before standing as a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. And, in fact, as of right now he's still only a candidate in a primary race that isn't even happening until August, so he's not even the confirmed general election candidate yet either. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As of this time, he fails WP:NPOL. If he gets elected, of course he's notable but not right now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merely being a candidate for US congress is not a pass on notability, and the sourcing is not substantial enough otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Zodiac Killer#Other possible suspects. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Loyd Stewart[edit]

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

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

This article appears very sensational and badly sourced. Basically all the juicy "early life" material that makes up the bulk of the material is directly from primary claims made in his book, and can't be regarded as reliably sourced. Leaving that out, there's not enough notability left for an article on the man. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - The book/memoir may be more deserving of a page, rather than Stewart. This page talks about family history, rather than about Stewart specifically. If this deserves coverage at all, it would be because the book claimed to find the Zodiac Killer. I suggest gutting any information not pertaining to the Zodiac suspect. Maybe he warrants a mention here: Zodiac Killer. Willie d troudour (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zodiac Killer#Other possible suspects, where a well-sourced sentence exists, which is about what this subject merits. The review I found in the [San Francisco Chronicle]] ran about a month after the pub. date and describes the "flurry of publicity" on cable news surrounding the book's publication, but the review dismisses the book for lack of evidence ("The Most Dangerous Animal of All,' by Gary L. Stewart," but the book review dismissed the book in a few short sentences, ("Now, 45 years after the Zodiac's last known murder, another name has been added to the list: the late Earl Van Best, a San Francisco rare-book dealer who resembled the police composite sketch of the killer. He's been nominated by his son, Gary L. Stewart, a Louisiana business executive. With co-author Susan Mustafa, Stewart has written "The Most Dangerous Animal of All: Searching for My Father ... and Finding the Zodiac Killer." The book attracted a flurry of cable-television publicity when it was published last month. But Stewart's book is short on proof that his father killed anybody, let alone the six Zodiac victims. Instead, embedded in a slow-moving narrative about an adoptee's search for his birth parents, the book offers some interesting local color and odd interpersonal connections from 1960s San Francisco, along with some investigative leads that Stewart thinks need to be pursued.") devoting itself, instead, to reviewing the long list of suspects and proposed suspects. In sum, while there may well be sufficient sourcing (mainly pre-pub publicity) so support an article, our readers are better served by the sentence in the main article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Lehane (novelist)[edit]

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

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

Crime novelist who seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. Some book reviews but nothing substantial about the person to be found. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment 3 reviews - kirkus, publishers weekly, and critiqueslibres.com, meets Nauthor. Marthadandridge (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, no. Pub. Weekly, Kirkus, are trade journals that review all books flagged by the publisher as significant. Our "3 review" standard for authors requires reviews in publication in other sorts of publications, these could be specialty magazines - it doesnot have to be the Times, but Kirkus doesn't cut the mustard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looked plausible, so I beat the bushes searching. But I can't source it beyond the brief promo for a book talk in a local bookstore that ran in the Washington City Paper and that looks like a book review on the page's reference list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Dorogi[edit]

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

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

Non notable. Makro (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sourcing is horrendous. Wikipedia is not IMDb, we do not try to create articles on everyone who has ever appeared in commerically produced film and television. Well, that is not our goal, but the level of coverage we have of early to mid 20th century actors and actresses occasionally makes me think we do try to do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. It's not clear that draftify is even a legitimate way to close an AfD, per WP:AFD/AI, but when have we ever let that stop us? But, even among the people arguing to keep, moving this to draft space where it can get a major overhaul, seems to be what most people think is best. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poesy Liang[edit]

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

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

Besides being written like an advert, I have serious problems with the notability of the page. It follows the same argument as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helping Angels.

From the "Sources" list (no in-line citations): #1 is 404. #2 Personal site. #3 and #4 are not found. #5 is an organization's site which may be connected to Poesy. #6 is a top-level link to her jewelry site. #7 video interview is dead. #8 and #9 are affiliated sites. #10 and #11 don't list Poesy Liang anywhere. #12 and #13 are dead. #14, #15, #16, and #17 are presumably saved interviews from her website, but those are not found also. #18 is a list of tips from Facebook users. #19 is a personal blog. #20, #21, #22 are dead. #23 is Poesy's personal site. #24 has nothing to do with her and #25 is a link to answers.com search. #26 and #28 are gone, and #27 is dead. #29 is a private blog. #30 and #33 are dead. #31, #32 are 404. #34 is actually a working video, but one television segment isn't enough for notability.

In short, there is not a single reliable source for this article. Thus I am nominating this article for my first AfD. Wqwt (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Wqwt (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Wqwt (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Do enough references exist online to extablish notability? Currently it appears the references included in the article aren't enough, but there appear to be others e.g

https://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/01/201079/champion-life

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/07/29/helping-people-see-the-light-through-artworks-in-the-dark/

https://vulcanpost.com/581171/5-malaysians-beat-cancer/

https://www.coindesk.com/art-bitcoin-inspiration-personal-finance/

If this is not established I suggest the article is 'draftified' as more sources may be published or found to establish notability in the future.

John Cummings (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't find any online resources that indicates she meets WP:ARTIST. And even if draftified, the article needs serious cleanup since WP:NOTPROMO. Wqwt (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or Draftify is OK too. I did a web search before looking at the article. I saw four good news sources, and many other miscellaneous sources. So, WP:EXIST. She meets GNG, but not CREATIVE. The article needs a very large haircut, ironically.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what WP:EXIST is, since it doesn't link to anything. But maybe she passes GNG with a serious article cleanup to add reliable sources. Wqwt (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, I meant WP:NEXIST, meaning sources are out there somewhere.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as enough reliable sources have been identified to enable WP:GNG to be passed but the article needs serious work and as its a blp perhaps it should be drafted or userfied if improvement doesn't come soon Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Draftify. This is a tempting place for applying WP:TNT, except for the fact that the New Straits Times and other articles demonstrate that the subject is, in fact, notable. That said, the article violates all three points of the WP:CCPOL and should be removed from mainspace immediately. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got a kick out of WP:TNT. The current article has a section on swimming to train her legs and her "most significant claim to poetry". Wqwt (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to draft space so article can be cleaned up. Hmlarson (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems there are enough articles to establish notatbility, Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Air Freight[edit]

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Only reference is its own web-site. Searches reveal the usual directory listing, sales pitches and blog and forum mentions but nothing of any notability. It is just a run-of-the-mill small air charter company. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:29, 31 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! 22:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WAPT (deployment software)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSOFT and GNG. I can't find a critical mass of third-party reliable sources, nor any evidence that this software meets other plausible notability criteria (it does not appear to be a significant portion of computing history, is not taught in school, etc.). A couple brief reviews and how-to bits don't add up to notability. (sayeth 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco and I happen to agree.) Kleuske (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There seem to be some quacking noises coming from the article history... Kleuske (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration of deletion of WAPT (software deployment)https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_national_de_la_recherche_agronomique (This is a repost from Kleuse page):
I have seen that you have followed the conclusion of 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco in your conclusion. But like I said to 49ers., there is not only English speaking people in this world, and although WAPT is currently mostly running in a French speaking circles, it does not means that in the good'old Europe it has not crossed borders and gone in other countries. English is still the common tongue, and having an English version of the WAPT article, even though it is mostly for non native English speakers does not mean that it is not relevant.

Please, reconsider, thanks, Denis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.197.250.107 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons given in my original PROD echoed above by Kleuske. While this may be useful software, that doesn't mean that it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If there are reliable independent sources that confirm the notability of the software per GNG or WP:NSOFT I would be happy to change my position. But I couldn't find any and none have been produced. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other items like wpkg or chocolatey do not have the sources you request. How do you justify that? I added some external link. I ask to give up the suppression! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.105.125.212 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kleuske, 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco, I have added to the article a history section and a usage in French school system section with references. Regarding the Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion that was referenced in the initial banner, I think that I have addressed at least two criterias :

• "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction" : I have added a reference of WAPT in the program of a university diploma. And yes WAPT is not used only in instruction.
• "It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability." : there is a reference to the certification from ANSSI which is a thorough security revue of the software by a state agency. If you need a review from the software itself, there are tons of blogs in French about it, just switch your google locale and google region to French to check by yourself.

Thanks for your time considering the subject. Cardondenis (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardondenis: Sources, sources, sources... If you make claims (of notabiliy), back them up with sources, please. Your say-so means little in this discussion. Kleuske (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: Sorry for my incomprehension... For the second bullet point, the ref WAPT_(deployment_software)#cite_note-3 points to the ssi.gouv.fr site. I think more than enough to have a government agency taking interest in the subject (unless you'd say that France is just one those "sh**ty country" that does not matter much, but I hope not everyone has this stance on the other side of the Atlantic). Most of the technical stuff that is written in the article can be found in the document https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2018/02/anssi-cspn-2018_02fr.pdf that is linked at the bottom of the ref'ed ssi.gouv.fr page. I think that report (please check the header on the first page of the pdf document) fill the "Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source" condition. For the first bullet point, I also added refs about university usage, technical school program. I'll add more links tomorrow, it is getting late here now. Cardondenis (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardondenis: If I ask for sources, passive aggression ("unless you'd say that France is just one those "sh**ty country") is not a good reply. Neither is regurgitating sources already mentioned. FYI, I'm Dutch. Kleuske (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think ANSSI which is refered to in the article ought to be considered a reliable source that meets WP:RS: it is significant, independent, reliable and secondary. And the report mentioned in the discussion covers most of the technical aspect of the software discussed in the article. Among the other secondary source which I think covers all the reliability criteria is the presentation WAPT_(deployment_software)#cite_ref-8 given at JRES conference covering usage at INRA. And for the WP:NSOFT point of view, I think it covers all the criteria (except maybe the geographical area which is currently mostly limited to French speaking countries) Cardondenis (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]